Go vs.

CA Case Digest
Go Vs. Court of Appeals 206 SCRA 138 G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992 Facts: Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had a collision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car, shot the driver of the other vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioners plate number and reported the same to the police, who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner presented himself in the police station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought against him. 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 in his petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation. Issue: Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of the offenses, which however constituted continuing crimes, i.e. subversion, membership in an outlawed organization, etc. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during the incident, thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Further, Section 7, Rule 112, does not apply. Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked in the police station, he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor, preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine probable cause. Prosecutor made a substantive error, petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge, where the same is required appear thereat. Petition granted, prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation, trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminary investigation, petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond.

Sales Vs. Sandiganbayan Case Digest

Sales Vs. Sandiganbayan 369 SCRA 293 G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 Facts: The petitioner, the incumbent mayor of Pagudpud Ilocos Norte, shot the former mayor and his political rival Atty. Benemerito. After the shooting, he surrendered himself and hence the police

inspector and wife of the victim filed a criminal complaint for murder against him. The judge after conducting the preliminary examination (p.e. for brevity) found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Also after conducting the preliminary investigation (p.i. for brevity), he issued a resolution forwarding the case to the prosecutor for appropriate action. Petitioner received a subpoena directing him to file his counter affidavit, affidavit of witnesses and other supporting documents. He did it the following day. While proceedings are ongoing, he filed a petition for habeas corpus with the C.A alleging that: the warrant was null and void because the judge who issued it was a relative by affinity of the private respondent and the p.e. and the p.i. were illegal and irregular as the judge doesnt have jurisdiction on the case. The C.A. granted the petition holding that the judge was a relative by affinity by 3rd degree to the private respondent and the p.i. he conducted has 2 stages, the p.e. and the p.i. proper. The proceeding now consists only of one stage. He conducted the requisite investigation prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest. Moreover he did not complete it. He only examined the witness of the complainant. But the prosecution instead of conducting p.i. of his own forwarded the records to the Ombudsman (OMB for brevity) for the latter to conduct the same. The OMB directed the petitioner to submit his counter affidavit, but he did not comply with it finding the same superfluous. The graft investigator recommended the filing of information for murder which the OMB approved. Petitioner received a copy of the resolution but prevented seeking reconsideration thereof he filed a motion to defer issuance of warrant of arrest pending the determination of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. This is now a petition for review on the decision of the Sandiganbayan, Issue: Whether or Not the OMB followed the procedure in conducting preliminary investigation. Whether or Not petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to submit controverting evidence. Held: The proper procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation was not followed because of the following reasons. Firstly, the preliminary investigation was conducted by 3 different investigators, none of whom completed the preliminary investigation There was not one continuous proceeding but rather, cases of passing the buck, the last one being the OMB throwing the buck to the Sandiganbayan. Secondly, the charge of murder is a non bailable offense. The gravity of the offense alone should have merited a deeper and more thorough preliminary investigation. The OMB did nothing of the sort but wallowed the resolution of the graft investigator. He did a worse job than the judge, by actually adopting the resolution of the graft investigator without doing anything and threw everything to the Sandiganbayan for evaluation. Thirdly, a person under preliminary investigation by the OMB is entitled to a motion for reconsideration, as maintained by the Rules of Procedure by the OMB. The filing of the motion for reconsideration is an integral part of the preliminary investigation proper. The denial thereof is tantamount to the denial of the right itself to a preliminary investigation. This fact alone renders preliminary investigation conducted in this case incomplete. And lastly, it was patent error for the Sandiganbayan to have relied purely on the OMBs certification of probable cause given the prevailing facts of the case much more so in the face of the latters flawed report and one side factual findings. The court cannot accept the Sandiganbayans assertion of having found probable cause on its own, considering the OMBs defective report and findings, which merely rekied on the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and disregarded the evidence for the defense. Judgment is rendered setting aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan, ordering the Sandiganbayan to quash the warrant of arrest and remanding the OMB for completion of the preliminary investigation.

JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE vs. HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, HON. EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL DE LAS ALAS Facts: Jose Antonio C. Leviste (petitioner) was, by Information, charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas on January 12, 2007 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Petitioner was placed under police custody while confined at the Makati Medical Center. After petitioner posted a bond which the trial court approved,he was released from detention, and his arraignment was set. The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying, inter alia, for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. Issue: Whether or not in cases when an accused is arrested without a warrant, the remedy of preliminary investigation belongs only to the accused. Held: No. The Court holds that the private complainant can move for reinvestigation. All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor The private complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot, by himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the information had been filed in court, the proper party for that being the public prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of the case.Thus, in cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted the authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion for reinvestigation. In such an instance, before a re-investigation of the case may be conducted by the public prosecutor, the permission or consent of the court must be secured. If after such re-investigation the prosecution finds a cogent basis to withdraw the information or otherwise cause the dismissal of the case, such proposed course of action may be taken but shall likewise be addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

Once the trial court grants the prosecutions motion for reinvestigation, the former is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecutorial arm of the Government. Having brought the case back to the drawing board, the prosecution is thus equipped with discretion wide and far reaching regarding the disposition thereof, subject to the trial courts approval of the resulting proposed course of action.