4. Go v.

CA
G.R. No. 101837 | 11 February 1992 | Feliciano, J.
Aggy | TOPIC: Warrantless Searches and Arrests: Time of Arrest

Doctrine:
Lawful warrantless arrests (Section 5, Rule 113 of 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure)
• When, in his presence, the person to be created has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense;
• 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
• When he 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.

Facts:
1. Maguan (victim) and Go (petitioner) almost bumped each other’s cars when they were heading the
opposite directions along the one-way street of Wilson St. in San Juan, Manila. Go was alleged to be
travelling in the “wrong direction”.
a. Go alighted his car and shot Maguan (Maguan eventually died of his gunshot wounds, I’m
assuming he died in the hospital, the case didn’t specify)
2. Go was positively identified by eyewitness who saw him shoot Maguan. A security guard of a nearby
restaurant even took note of his car’s plate number.
a. A verification from LTO showed that the car was registered in the name of Go’s wife.
b. Police then launched a manhunt of Go.
3. July 8, 1991 – Go (with his 2 lawyers) went to the San Juan Police Station to verify the news reports
that he was being hunted by the police.
a. Police detained him. An eyewitness who was at the station at the time positively identified him
as the gunman.
b. Police advised him that he could avail a preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a
waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (as provided by Sec. 7, Rule
112)
c. Go refused. Prosecutor, then, filed an information for murder before the RTC. No bail was
recommended.
d. On the same day, Go filed an omnibus motion with the prosecutor for immediate release and
proper preliminary investigation. (He alleges that the warrantless arrest was unlawful and that
he was not afforded a preliminary investigation).
e. Prosecutor granted his bail on a cash bond of P100,000. Further, prosecutor filed a Motion
For Leave To Conduct Preliminary Investigation with RTC. RTC granted.
f. The next day, RTC issued orders recalling (1) the bail granted, (2) motion for leave of
prosecutor, and (3) omnibus motion of Go. Go was ordered to surrender himself within 48
hours. RTC likewise ordered his arraignment.
4. Go went to SC assailing the validity of his warrantless arrest. SC remanded it to CA. Go, also, filed a
petition for habeas corpus with CA.
a. CA dismissed both petitions holding that the warrantless arrest was valid since the crime was
freshly committed, his identity has been established through investigation, and there has been
an existing manhunt for him.
b. While all this was happening, the trial for the criminal case against him commenced.
Prosecution was already presenting witnesses.
Issues
1. W/N Go’s warrantless arrest was lawful? – No.

Holding:
SC held that the petitioner was not arrested at all. He placed himself at the disposal of the police to verify
the news reports regarding the manhunt for him.

The “arrest” was not within the purview of the lawful warrantless arrests under Section 5 of Rule 113 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure:
• When, in his presence, the person to be created has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
o The police was not present at the time that the crime was committed.

• 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;
o The arrest took place 6 days after the shooting of Manguan. It cannot be regarded as
effected “when the crime in fact had just been committed”. Neither did the information
upon which the police acted had derived from “personal knowledge”. It was derived from
eyewitness accounts of the people who allegedly witnessed the shooting.

Not being under the purview of Section 5, there could not have been a lawful warrantless arrest.

Section 7 of Rule 112 provides for a condition when a lawful warrantless arrested was done. It provides
that the accused may be afforded a preliminary investigation after signing a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of RPC.

However, in the case at bar, Section 7 has no application since the warrantless arrest was not lawful.
Thus, petitioner is entitled to a preliminary investigation without any conditions (meaning he didn’t need
to sign a waiver before he can avail a preliminary investigation).

SC ruled that the trial must first be suspended and the prosecutor should conduct a preliminary
investigation.

Ruling:
Petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. Order of trial court is SET ASIDE AND NULLIFIED. CA
decision is REVERSED.
Trial on the merits of the criminal case in RTC shall be SUSPENDED to await the conclusion of the
preliminary investigation. Release of petitioner is ORDERED upon posting bail of P100,000.

Relevant Provisions: