Go vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 101837 Feb.

11, 1992

FACTS:
On July 2 1991, Eldon Maguan was allegedly shot to death by accused Rolito Go due
to a traffic altercation when petitioner’s car and the victim’s car nearly bumped each other. The
Security Guard of the “Cravings Bake Shop” saw the whole incident and point herein petitioner
as the gunman, which he positively identified when questioned by the authorities. Being
convinced of the suspect’s identity, the police launched a manhunt operation that caused
petitioner to present himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify the said issue; he was
then detained by the police.

ISSUE:
Whether or not herein petitioner’s arrest valid?

RULING:
The reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor General upon Umil v.Ramos is, in the
circumstances of this case, misplaced. In the instant case, the offense for which petitioner was
arrested was murder, an offense which was obviously commenced and completed at one definite
location in time and space. No one had pretended that the fatal shooting of Maguan was a
"continuing crime."

..... none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating
that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police
acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one
stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's
plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name. That information did
not, however, constitute "personal knowledge."
ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

An information was filed charging herein petitioner Rolito Go for murder before the Regional
Trial Court of Metro Manila. Petitioner voluntarily presented himself together with his two
lawyers to the police upon obtaining knowledge of being hunted by the latter. However, he was
immediately detained and denied his right of a preliminary investigation unless he executes and
sings a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon omnibus motion
for immediate release on recognizance or on bail and proper preliminary investigation on the
ground that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and no preliminary investigation was conducted
before the information was filed, which is violative of his rights, the same was granted but later
on reversed by the lower court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court in
sustaining the decision of the lower court held that petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid in
view of the fact that the offense was committed, the petitioner was clearly identified and there
exists valid information for murder filed against petitioner

Hence, the petitioner filed this present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE/S:

The issues assailed in the case at bar are the following:

1. whether or not the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner was lawful, and
2. whether or not petitioner waived his right to preliminary investigation.

RULING:
The general rule on arrest provides that the same is legitimate if effected with a valid warrant.
However, there are instances specifically enumerated under the law when a warrantless arrest
may be considered lawful. Despite that, the warrantless arrest of herein petitioner Rolito Go does
not fall within the terms of said rule. The police were not present at the time of the commission
of the offense, neither do they have personal knowledge on the crime to be committed or has
been committed not to mention the fact that petitioner was not a prisoner who has escaped from
the penal institution. In view of the above, the allegation of the prosecution that petitioner needs
to sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code before a preliminary
investigation may be conducted is baseless. In this connection, petitioner has all the right to ask
for a preliminary investigation to determine whether is probable cause that a crime has been
committed and that petitioner is probably guilty thereof as well as to prevent him from the
hassles, anxiety and aggravation brought by a criminal proceeding. This reason of the accused is
substantial, which he should not be deprived of.

On the other hand, petitioner did not waive his right to have a preliminary investigation contrary
to the prosecutor's claim. The right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the
accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a pleas at arraignment. The facts of the
case show that petitioner insisted on his right to preliminary investigation before his arraignment
and he, through his counsel denied answering questions before the court unless they were
afforded the proper preliminary investigation. For the above reasons, the petition was granted
and the ruling of the appellate court was set aside and nullified. The Supreme Court however,
contrary to petitioner's allegation, declared that failure to accord the right to preliminary
investigation did not impair the validity of the information charging the latter of the crime of
murder.