Rolito Go vs Pelayo (RTC Judge) and People

R112 S1 Mandatory Preliminary Investigation

RUSH MODE
FACTS:
1. Rolito Go shot a 20-ish y/o dead after crashing with him on a 1-way street, and he is
driving the wrong way. The crime was witnessed by a security guard nearby.
2. After a manhunt, Go went to the police, assisted by lawyers, to verify the news about
him. The police detained him afterwards. The witness is also there at the time, and he
was positively identified.
3. This led the police to file a complaint for homicide to the prosecutor, and told Go that he
may avail of PI if he signs the waiver. Go refused, so an Information was filed against
him for murder. (Victim died in between the filing of complaint and information)
4. No PI was conducted because no waiver was signed. Petitioner then filed a motion to
have a PI conducted, saying that there is no lawful warrantless arrest (LWA)
5. Prosecutor noted on the motion that he does not object. RTC judge granted, released Go
on bail, and cancelled arraignment until after PI. However, such order was recalled a day
later. Go challenged this before the SC, but SC passed it to CA, who ruled IFO Go.
6. Before CA decision, Go was arraigned, and court entered a plea of not guilty for him,
and trial ensued.
7. Hence, this petition before the SC seeking to suspend the proceedings before the RTC.
ISSUE: W/N Go has a right to PI
Held: YES.
RATIO:
Prosecution bases their argument that there is a LWA. Given that there is LWA, S7 R112 is
applicable: persons under LWA must sign waiver before PI to be conducted. Court disagrees
There is no LWA: none of the instances in S5 R112 is applicable. He did not surrender, and none
of the arresting officers has personal knowledge of the crime. It could not also be said that he
waived PI: in fact, he raised it at the very beginning and kept raising it throughout the
proceedings
R112 S1 says that for offenses with more than 4 years imprisonment, there should be PI.
However, given that no PI is conducted, it does not invalidate the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Instead, proceedings before the RTC must be suspended until the conclusion of PI. SC then
ordered that PI be conducted before proceedings can continue.
DETAILED DIGEST
FACTS:

1. Rolito Go (Petitioner) was going against a one-way street in Manila when he crashed
with Eldon Maguans vehicle who was traversing the same road the right way. After the
crash, Petitioner alighted his vehicle and promptly shot Maguan. The event was
witnessed by a security guard in one of the nearby establishments.
2. After a manhunt, Petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to
verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police, accompanied by two
lawyers. He was promptly detained, and coincidentally, the witness was also there.
3. After being identified as the gunman, the police filed a complaint before the Prosecutor
of Rizal for frustrated homicide.
4. The prosecutor informed Petitioner in the presence of his lawyers that he may avail of
the PI but he must first sign a waiver under R125. Petitioner refused to do so.
5. Afterwards, the prosecutor filed an information for murder against Petitioner (instead
of homicide) before the RTC. Prosecutor certified that no PI was conducted because
Petitioner did not execute the waiver.
6. Petitioners counsel filed with the Prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release
and PI, alleging:
a. Unlawful warrantless arrest
b. No PI was conducted before Information was filed
c. Prayed that he be released on recognizance or on bail.
7. Prosecutor wrote on the last page of the motion itself that he interposes no objection, on
a cash bond of 100k.
8. Prosecutor filed an ex-parte motion for leave to conduct PI, prayed that court
proceedings be suspended. They attached the prosecutors note on Petitioners motion.
9. RTC issued an order granting the motion, cancelled arraignment until after PI was
finished. Petitioner released on bail.
10. One day later, Respondent Judge motu proprio issued an Order:
a. Order granting bail was recalled
b. Order granting PI was cancelled
c. Petitioners motion before the prosecutor was treated as a petition for bail, and
set a hearing date for it.
11. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the SC
contending that order. Claiming the Information filed was null and void for no PI was
conducted, prayed that proceedings be suspended pending resolution of motion.
Respondent Judge denied this petition. Petitioner surrendered to police afterwards
12. SC remanded that petition to CA
13. Meanwhile, respondent Judge issued an order setting Petitioners arraignment.
Petitioner filed before the CA a motion to restrain arraignment.
14. Meanwhile, respondent Judge issued a commitment order directing the transfer of
Petitioner to the custody of Rizal Provincial Jail. He was arraigned on the same day and
was entered a plea of not guilty after refusing to enter a plea.
15. Petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CA, his detention had been too
long

16. CA granted habeas corpus, and the certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus was
consolidated. Motion to restrain arraignment was denied because the issue was moot.
17. Criminal case commenced before the RTC
18. CA decided on the consolidated petition, denying the habeas corpus, and the certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus. Grounds:
a. Petitioner was lawfully arrested without a warrant because it can still be
considered as a freshly committed crime given that only 6 days has passed
between the crime and his appearance
b. The act of posting bail constituted as a waiver of the irregularity of the arrest.
Likewise, his right to PI was waived because he did not seasonably raise it
c. Since there is now a valid information filed and a valid commitment order before
the court, the petition for habeas corpus could not be granted.
19. Hence, this petition.
Issues:
1. W/N he was lawfully arrested
2. W/N he waived his right to PI
HELD:
1. No
2. No
FOR READING PLEASURE:
Prosecutors argument:
There is a lawful warrantless arrest because Petitioners identity as the gunman was sufficiently
established by policework, and he was validly arrested 6 days after the incident, citing a
jurisprudence that a warrantless arrest is valid although the arrest was 14 days after the killing.
Also, they argue that S7 R112, which talks about persons lawfully arrested without a warrant,
shows that Petitioner must first sign the waiver
Petitioners argument:
He was not lawfully arrested without a warrant because the crime was not freshly committed,
citing the same jurisprudence. He committed himself before the police 6 days after the incident.
Moreover, none of the police officers has personal knowledge of the crime allegedly
committed. Since there is no lawful warrantless arrest, S7 R112 should not apply.

COURTS RULING
1. There is no lawful warrantless arrest in this case. The jurisprudence cited by the
prosecutor is talking about a continuing offense, such as subversion and rebellion, which

can be viewed as a freshly committed crime even after 14 days has passed since the
nature of the crime is continuing.
In this case, the crime committed is a one-time incident. Next, none of the provisions of
S5 R113 could apply.
2. Given that there is no lawful warrantless arrest, S7 R112 would not apply. Petitioner was
not arrested at all; he came into the police station to surrender. When the police filed the
complaint before the prosecutor, they should have immediately scheduled a PI. Instead,
they proceeded under the erroneous application of S7 R112 when they required him to
sign a waiver.
It cannot also be said that Petitioner waived his right to PI, given that he demanded PI
from the very beginning. In a certain jurisprudence, this court held that PI may be
waived if not seasonably raised before entering the plea. In this case, Petitioner was
constantly invoking his right to PI even before his arraignment where he refused to enter
a plea. It follows that Petitioner never really waived his right to PI.
However, the failure to be given PI which constituted a denial of the appropriate full
measure of the statutory process of criminal justice, did not impair the validity of the
information and does not affect the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Given the fact that the trial on the merits has already commenced, how does it impact
Petitioners right to PI? Does he continue to be entitled to have PI in respect of the charge
against him? Court held yes. Trial on the merits should be suspended or held in
abeyance and a PI be accorded to petitioner. The constitutional point is that Petitioner is
not accorded what he was entitled to by way of procedural due process.
WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED. Prosecutor is hereby ordered to conduct PI. Proceedings
before the RTC is to be suspended until the conclusion of the PI.