ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 101837
February 11, 1992

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.

Decision:
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.

Dissenting Opinions:
“Cold neutrality of an impartial judge”, although required for the benefit of litigants, is
also designed to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and more fundamentally, to gain
and maintain the people’s faith in the institutions they have erected when they adopted
our Constitution.

Note: Naa naman sa dissenting opinions ang “Right to impartial trial” na part. Sorry.