Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Myla Ruth N.

Sara

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.