Go vs CA

G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992

Facts:
Rolito Go while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, nearly bumped Eldon
Maguans car. Go alighted from his car, shot Maguan and left the scene. A security guard at a
nearby restaurant was able to take down petitioners car plate number. The police arrived shortly
thereafter at the scene of the shooting. A manhunt ensued.
Six days after, petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news
reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The
police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at the police station at
that time, positively identified petitioner as the gunman.
Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court, setting and commencing
trial without preliminary investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right
to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation, that petitioner has
been arrested without a warrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule 112
of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining
to situations of lawful warrantless arrests.
Petitioner argues that he was not lawfully arrested without warrant because he went to the police
station six (6) days after the shooting which he had allegedly perpetrated. Thus, petitioner argues,
the crime had not been just committed at the time that he was arrested. Moreover, none of the
police officers who arrested him had been an eyewitness to the shooting of Maguan and
accordingly none had the personal knowledge required for the lawfulness of a warrantless
arrest. Since there had been no lawful warrantless arrest, Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court which establishes the only exception to the right to preliminary investigation, could not
apply in respect of petitioner.
Issue/s:
Whether or not a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by the San Juan
respect of petitioner Go;

Police in

Whether petitioner had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation

Held:
1. No. The Court does not believe that the warrantless arrest or detention of petitioner in the
instant case falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure which provides as follows:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person;
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
Petitioners arrest took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The arresting
officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had
allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the arrest effected six (6) days after the shooting be
reasonably regarded as effected when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed within the
meaning of Section 5 (b). Moreover, 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 gunmans cars plate number which turned out to be registered in
petitioners wifes name. That information did not, however, constitute personal knowledge.
It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within
the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113.
2. No. In the circumstances of this case, the Court does not believe that by posting bail, petitioner
had waived his right to preliminary investigation. In People v. Selfaison, the Court held that
appellants there had waived their right to preliminary investigation because immediately after
their arrest, they filed bail and proceeded to trial without previously claiming that they did not
have the benefit of a preliminary investigation.
In the instant case, petitioner Go asked for release on recognizance or on bail and for preliminary
investigation in one omnibus motion. He had thus claimed his right to preliminary
investigation before respondent Judge approved the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered
his release on 12 July 1991. Accordingly, the Court cannot reasonably imply waiver of
preliminary investigation on the part of petitioner. In fact, when the Prosecutor filed a motion in
court asking for leave to conduct preliminary investigation, he clearly if impliedly recognized
that petitioners claim to preliminary investigation was a legitimate one.

HOME

ABOUT THIS SITE

ABOUT ME

PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

CRIMINAL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES
Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: criminal law, Philippine Criminal law, principles of criminal law |
The term law refers to the set of rules and regulations or orders, usually written, created and
enacted by the people that must be abided by the people themselves. The aim of the passage of
laws is social control, that is, people binded by the laws will know what acts should be done and
what acts that should not be done.
One classification of law is the criminal law. Criminal law is defined as that branch or division
of public law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment it.
Crime is a general term that refers to acts or omissions punishable by criminal law. An act or
omission is punishable only if there is a law prohibiting the performance of the act or a law that
commands a person to do an act but he failed to perform. In the Philippines, we follow the legal
maxim of NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE which means there is no crime if
there is no penal law punishing it. Therefore, in order for an act or omission to be punished,
there must be a law that forbids it and that law at the same time must provide for a penalty
violating it.
The sources of criminal law in the Philippines are: 1) The Revised Penal Code (RA 3815) and its
amendments; 2) Republic Acts; 3) Presidential Decrees, and 4) other Special Penal laws passed
by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly,
the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa.
The basic of all criminal laws where some of the special laws were patterned is the Revised
Penal Code (RA 3815) that took effect on January 1, 1932. Presidential Decrees and Republic
Acts are the two (2) well known names of special criminal laws in the Philippines.
Presidential Decrees are special laws which were passed during the Martial Law era wherein the
Philippine was placed under a Parliamentary system of government. Republic Acts are special
laws which were passed after the 1987 Philippine Constitution was enacted where the system of
our government is now democratic and republican.

At present, the national law making body of the Philippines is the (House of) Congress which
is composed of the Senators and the Representatives. Both belong to the legislative branch of the
government and they exercise legislative power, which is the authority under the Constitution to
make, amend, modify, or to repeal laws (Section 1, Article VI). Any law passed by the Congress
is national in scope and application.
The legislative power is shared by the Congress with the local legislatives or the local law
making bodies of the different political divisions of the Philippines which are the provinces,
cities, municipalities, and barangays. A law passed by a local legislative is termed as
ordinance and is only applicable within their respective political jurisdiction.
Specifically, violation of the Revised Penal Code is termed as felony while violation of special
criminal laws and ordinances is termed as offense. Any person who committed a crime may be
held liable criminally, civilly, administratively, both or all of the above. Criminal liability means
imprisonment with the duration is usually provided by the law violated. Civil liability is the
payment of damages in the form of money. Administrative liability is a penalty associated with
the principal penalty and usually bestowed if the offender is a public official or employee like
suspension in the performance of functions, demotioninf rank, or dismissal from service
Principles of Philippine Criminal Law and the Exemptions in its Application
1. Principle of Generality Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory.
Exceptions: The following are not subject to the operation of the Philippine criminal laws based
to the well established principles of international law:
a)

Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.

b)

Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges daffaires

1. Principle of Territoriality Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within
Philippine territory.

Exceptions: The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable in the following cases
even if the felony is committed outside of the Philippines:
a)

When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.

A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine
Bureau of Customs.
b) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines
or obligations and securities issued by the (Philippine) Government.

c)
When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number.
d) When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense in
the exercise of his functions.
Some crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions are direct bribery (Art.
210), indirect bribery (Art. 211), and malversation of public funds or property (Art 217).
e)
When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the
law of nations.
Some of the crimes under this title are treason (Art. 114), espionage (Art. 117) and piracy and
mutiny in the high seas (Art. 122).
3)
Principle of Prospectivity Penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in
which it was not punishable when committed.
Exception: A new law can be given a retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accused.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

SEARCH (AND SEIZURE) WITHOUT WARRANT,

WHEN LAWFUL
Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: search, seizure, warrantless search |
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and some cases decided by the Supreme Court
provide the instances when search is lawful without search warrant:
1. In times of war within the area of military operation.
(People v. de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716, Guanzon v. de Villa, 181 SCRA 623)
2. As an incident of a lawful arrest.
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states that a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in
the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Requisites: a) arrest must be lawful; b) search and seizure must be contemporaneous with arrest;
c) search must be within permissible area (People v. Estella, G.R. Nos. 138539 40, January 21,
2003)

3. When there are prohibited articles open to the eye and hand of an officer (Plain View
Doctrine).
The plain view doctrine is usually applied where the police officer is not searching for
evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes upon an incriminationatory
object (People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597).
Requisites: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; 2) the evidence was accidentally discovered
by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately
visible; and d) plain view justified the seizure of the evidence without any further search
(People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003).
4. When there is consent which is voluntary (consented search)
Requisites: a) there is a right; b) there must be knowledge of the existence of such right; and c)
there must be intention to waive (De Gracia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 689).
5. When it is incident to a lawful inspection.
Example of this kind of search is the searches of passengers at airports, ports or bus terminals.
Republic Act 6235 provides that luggage and baggage of airline passengers shall be subject to
search
6. Under the Tariff and Customs Code for purposes of enforcing the customs and tariff laws;
The purpose is to prevent violations of smuggling or immigration laws.
7. Searches and seizures of vessels and aircraft; this extends to the warrantless search of
motor vehicle for contraband.
Examples of this is the seizure without warrant of a fishing vessel found to be violating fishery
laws and the stop and search without a warrant at military or police checkpoints which are
legal. Warrantless search and seizure in these instances are justified on the ground that it is not
practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicles, vessels, or aircrafts can be moved quickly
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought.
8. When there is a valid reason to stop and frisk.
Stop and frisk is defined as the particular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a
citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he observes unusual
conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot (Terry v. Ohio).
Requisites: a) that there is a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct; b) that the
police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries; c) that the police
officer approached and restrained the person in order to check the latters outer clothing for

possibly concealed weapon; and d) that the apprehending officer must have a genuine reason to
warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapon or contraband concealed about him
People v. Sy Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066 67, February 4, 2003)
NOTE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE SHOULD PRECEDE THE ARREST.