01. go v. ca (1992)

8/11/2019 01. Go v. CA (1992)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/01-go-v-ca-1992 1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992

ROLITO GO y TM!UNTING, petitioner,vs.T"E COURT OF PPELS, T"E "ON. !EN#MIN $. PEL%O, Pre&'(')* #u(*e,!ra)+ 1-8, Re*'o)a Tr'a Cour/, NC#R Pa&'*, M.M., a)( PEOPLE OF T"EP"ILIPPINES, respondents.

FELICINO, J.:

According to the findings of the San Juan Police in their nvestigation Report, 1 on !Jul" #$$#, Eldon Maguan %as driving his car along &ilson St., San Juan, MetroManila, heading to%ards P. 'uevarra St. Petitioner entered &ilson St., %here it is aone(%a" street and started travelling in the opposite or )%rong) direction. At thecorner of &ilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., petitioner*s and Maguan*s cars nearl"bu+ped each other. Petitioner alighted fro+ his car, %aled over and shot Maguaninside his car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene. A securit" guard ata nearb" restaurant %as able to tae do%n petitioner*s car plate nu+ber. -he policearrived shortl" thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an e+pt"shell and one round of live a++unition for a $ ++ caliber pistol. erification at the/and -ransportation 0ffice sho%ed that the car %as registered to one Elsa Ang 'o.

-he follo%ing da", the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out %herethe suspect had co+e fro+1 the" %ere infor+ed that petitioner had dined at CravingsBae Shop shortl" before the shooting. -he police obtained a facsi+ile or i+pressionof the credit card used b" petitioner fro+ the cashier of the bae shop. -he securit"guard of the bae shop %as sho%n a picture of petitioner and he positivel" identifiedhi+ as the sa+e person %ho had shot Maguan. 2aving established that the assailant%as probabl" the petitioner, the police launched a +anhunt for petitioner.

0n 3 Jul" #$$#, petitioner presented hi+self before the San Juan Police Station toverif" ne%s reports that he %as being hunted b" the police1 he %as acco+panied b"t%o 4!5 la%"ers. -he police forth%ith detained hi+. An e"e%itness to the shooting,%ho %as at the police station at that ti+e, positivel" identified petitioner as thegun+an. -hat sa+e da", the police pro+ptl" filed a co+plaint for frustrated ho+icide

2 against petitioner %ith the 0ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ri6al. 7irst AssistantProvincial Prosecutor 8ennis illa gnacio 4)Prosecutor)5 infor+ed petitioner, in thepresence of his la%"ers, that he could avail hi+self of his right to preli+inar"investigation but that he +ust first sign a %aiver of the provisions of Article #!9 of theRevised Penal Code. Petitioner refused to e:ecute an" such %aiver.

0n $ Jul" #$$#, %hile the co+plaint %as still %ith the Prosecutor, and before aninfor+ation could be filed in court, the victi+, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot

%ound4s5.

Accordingl", on ## Jul" #$$#, the Prosecutor, instead of filing an infor+ation forfrustrated ho+icide, filed an infor+ation for +urder 3 before the Regional -rial Court.No bail %as reco++ended. At the botto+ of the infor+ation, the Prosecutor certifiedthat no preli+inar" investigation had been conducted because the accused did note:ecute and sign a %aiver of the provisions of Article #!9 of the Revised Penal Code.

n the afternoon of the sa+e da", ## Jul" #$$#, counsel for petitioner filed %ith theProsecutor an o+nibus +otion for i++ediate release and proper preli+inar"investigation, alleging that the %arrantless arrest of petitioner %as unla%ful and thatno preli+inar" investigation had been conducted before the infor+ation %as filed.Petitioner also pra"ed that he be released on recogni6ance or on bail. Provincial

Prosecutor Mauro Castro, acting on the o+nibus +otion, %rote on the last page ofthe +otion itself that he interposed no ob;ection to petitioner being grantedprovisional libert" on a cash bond of P#<<,<<<.<<.

0n #! Jul" #$$#, petitioner filed an urgent ex-parte +otion for special raffle in orderto e:pedite action on the Prosecutor*s bail reco++endation. -he case %as raffled tothe sala of respondent Judge, %ho, on the sa+e date, approved the cash bond - posted b" petitioner and ordered his release. 7 Petitioner %as in fact released thatsa+e da".

0n #= Jul" #$$#, the Prosecutor filed %ith the Regional -rial Court a +otion for leaveto conduct preli+inar" investigation 8 and pra"ed that in the +eanti+e all proceedingsin the court be suspended. 2e stated that petitioner had filed before the 0ffice of theProvincial Prosecutor of Ri6al an o+nibus +otion for i++ediate release andpreli+inar" investigation, %hich +otion had been granted b" Provincial ProsecutorMauro Castro, %ho also agreed to reco++end cash bail of P#<<,<<<.<<. -heProsecutor attached to the +otion for leave a cop" of petitioner*s o+nibus +otion of## Jul" #$$#.

Also on #= Jul" #$$#, the trial court issued an 0rder 9 granting leave to conductpreli+inar" investigation and cancelling the arraign+ent set for #9 August #$$# untilafter the prosecution shall have concluded its preli+inar" investigation.

0n #> Jul" #$$#, ho%ever, respondent Judge motu proprio issued an 0rder, 10 e+bod"ing the follo%ing? 4#5 the #! Jul" #$$# 0rder %hich granted bail %as recalled1

1

8/11/2019 01. Go v. CA (1992)


petitioner %as given @3 hours fro+ receipt of the 0rder to surrender hi+self1 4!5 the#= Jul" #$$# 0rder %hich granted leave to the prosecutor to conduct preli+inar"investigation %as recalled and cancelled1 45 petitioner*s o+nibus +otion fori++ediate release and preli+inar" investigation dated ## Jul" #$$# %as treated as apetition for bail and set for hearing on ! Jul" #$$#.

0n #$ Jul" #$$#, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari , prohibition and mandamusbefore the Supre+e Court assailing the #> Jul" #$$# 0rder, contending that the

infor+ation %as null and void because no preli+inar" investigation had beenpreviousl" conducted, in violation of his right to due process. Petitioner also +ovedfor suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution b" the Supre+eCourt of his petition1 this +otion %as, ho%ever, denied b" respondent Judge.

0n ! Jul" #$$#, petitioner surrendered to the police.

B" a Resolution dated !@ Jul" #$$#, this Court re+anded the petition for certiorari ,prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals.

0n #= August #$$#, respondent Judge issued an order in open court setting thearraign+ent of petitioner on ! August #$$#.

0n #$ August #$$#, petitioner filed %ith the Court of Appeals a +otion to restrain hisarraign+ent.

0n ! August #$$#, respondent ;udge issued a Co++it+ent 0rder directing theProvincial &arden of Ri6al to ad+it petitioner into his custod" at the Ri6al ProvincialJail. 0n the sa+e date, petitioner %as arraigned. n vie%, ho%ever, of his refusal toenter a plea, the trial court entered for hi+ a plea of not guilt". -he -rial court then setthe cri+inal case for continuous hearings on #$, !@ and != Septe+ber1 on !, , ##and #> 0ctober1 and on >, 3, #@, #9, !# and !! Nove+ber #$$#. 11

0n !> August #$$#, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus 12 in the Court of Appeals. 2e alleged that in vie% of public respondent*s failure to ;oin issues in the

petition for certiorari earlier filed b" hi+, after the lapse of +ore than a +onth, thusprolonging his detention, he %as entitled to be released on habeas corpus.

0n < August #$$#, the Court of Appeals issued the %rit of habeas corpus. 13 -hepetition for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand, and the petitionfor habeas corpus, upon the other, %ere subseuentl" consolidated in the Court of Appeals.

-he Court of Appeals, on ! Septe+ber #$$#, issued a resolution den"ing petitioner*s+otion to restrain his arraign+ent on the ground that that +otion had beco+e +ootand acade+ic.

0n #$ Septe+ber #$$#, trial of the cri+inal case co++enced and the prosecutionpresented its first %itness.

0n ! Septe+ber #$$#, the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision 1 dis+issing the t%o 4!5 petitions, on the follo%ing grounds?

a. Petitioner*s %arrantless arrest %as valid because the offense for%hich he %as arrested and charged had been )freshl" co++itted.)

2is identit" had been established through investigation. At the ti+ehe sho%ed up at the police station, there had been an e:isting+anhunt for hi+. 8uring the confrontation at the San Juan PoliceStation, one %itness positivel" identified petitioner as the culprit.

b. Petitioner*s act of posting bail constituted %aiver of an"irregularit" attending his arrest. 2e %aived his right to preli+inar"investigation b" not invoing it properl" and seasonabl" under theRules.

c. -he trial court did not abuse its discretion %hen it issued the #>Jul" #$$# 0rder because the trial court had the inherent po%er toa+end and control its processes so as to +ae the+ confor+ableto la% and ;ustice.

d. Since there %as a valid infor+ation for +urder against petitionerand a valid co++it+ent order 4issued b" the trial ;udge afterpetitioner surrendered to the authorities %hereb" petitioner %asgiven to the custod" of the Provincial &arden5, the petition forhabeas corpus could not be granted.

0n 0ctober #$$#, the prosecution presented three 45 +ore %itnesses at the trial.Counsel for petitioner also filed a )&ithdra%al of Appearance) 1 %ith the trial court,%ith petitioner*s confor+it".

0n @ 0ctober #$$#, the present Petition for Revie% on Certiorari %as filed. 0n #@0ctober #$$#, the Court issued a Resolution directing respondent Judge to hold inabe"ance the hearing of the cri+inal case belo% until further orders fro+ this Court.

n this Petition for Revie%, t%o 4!5 principal issues need to be addressed? first,%hether or not a la%ful %arrantless arrest had been effected b" the San Juan Policein respect of petitioner 'o1 and second, %hether petitioner had effectivel" %aived hisright to preli+inar" investigation. &e consider these issues seriatim.

n respect of the f irst issue, the Solicitor 'eneral argues that under the facts of thecase, petitioner had been validl" arrested %ithout %arrant. Since petitioner*s identit"as the gun+an %ho had shot Eldon Maguan on ! Jul" #$$# had been sufficientl"

2

8/11/2019 01. Go v. CA (1992)


established b" police %or, petitioner %as validl" arrested si: 4=5 da"s later at theSan Juan Police Station. -he Solicitor 'eneral invoes Nazareno v . StationCommander, etc ., et al ., 1- one of the seven 4>5 cases consolidated %ith In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Roberto mil, etc ., v . Ramos, et al . 17 %here a+a;orit" of the Court upheld a %arrantees arrest as valid although effected fourteen4#@5 da"s after the illing in connection %ith %hich Na6areno had been arrested. Accordingl", in the vie% of the Solicitor 'eneral, the provisions of Section >, Rule ##!of the Rules of Court %ere applicable and because petitioner had declined to %aivethe provisions of Article #!9 of the Revised Penal Code, the Prosecutor %as legall" ;ustified in filing the infor+ation for +urder even %ithout preli+inar" investigation.

0n the other hand, petitioner argues that he %as not la%full" arrested %ithout %arrantbecause he %ent to the police station si: 4=5 da"s after the shooting %hich he hadallegedl" perpetrated. -hus, petitioner argues, the cri+e had not been );ustco++itted) at the ti+e that he %as arrested. Moreover, none of the police officers%ho arrested hi+ had been an e"e%itness to the shooting of Maguan andaccordingl" none had the )personal no%ledge) reuired for the la%fulness of a%arrantees arrest. Since there had been no la%ful %arrantless arrest. Section >, Rule##! of the Rules of Court %hich establishes the onl" e:ception to the right topreli+inar" investigation, could not appl" in respect of petitioner.

-he reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor 'eneral upon mil v . Ramos is, inthe circu+stances of this case, +isplaced. n mil v . Ramos, b" an eight(to(si: vote,the Court sustained the legalit" of the %arrantless arrests of petitioners +ade fro+one 4#5 to fourteen da"s after the actual co++ission of the offenses, upon the groundthat such offenses constituted )continuing cri+es.) -hose offenses %ere subversion,+e+bership in an outla%ed organi6ation lie the Ne% People*s Ar+", etc. n theinstant case, the offense for %hich petitioner %as arrested %as +urder, an offense%hich %as obviousl" co++enced and co+pleted at one definite location in ti+e andspace. No one had pretended that the fatal shooting of Maguan %as a )continuingcri+e.)

Secondl", %e do not believe that the %arrantees )arrest) or detention of petitioner inthe instant case falls %ithin the ter+s of Section 9 of Rule ## of the #$39 Rules on

Cri+inal Procedure %hich provides as follo%s?

Sec. 9 !rrest "ithout "arrant# "hen la"ful . A peace officer or aprivate person +a", %ithout %arrant, arrest a person?

4a5 &hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested hasco++itted, is actuall" co++itting, or is atte+pting to co++it anoffense1

4b5 &hen an offense has in fact ;ust been co++itted, and he haspersonal no%ledge of facts indicating that the person to bearrested has co++itted it1 and

4c5 &hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner %ho has escapedfro+ a penal establish+ent or place %here he is serving final ;udg+ent or te+poraril" confined %hile his case is pending, or hasescaped %hile being transferred fro+ one confine+ent to another.

n cases falling under paragraphs 4a5 and 4b5 hereof, the personarrested %ithout a %arrant shall be forth%ith delivered to thenearest police station or ;ail, and he shall be proceed against in

accordance %ith Rule ##!, Section >.

Petitioner*s )arrest) too place si: 4=5 da"s after the shooting of Maguan. -he)arresting) officers obviousl" %ere not present, %ithin the +eaning of Section 94a5, atthe ti+e petitioner had allegedl" shot Maguan. Neither could the )arrest) effected si:4=5 da"s after the shooting be reasonabl" regarded as effected )%hen Dthe shootinghad in fact ;ust been co++itted) %ithin the +eaning of Section 94b5. Moreover, noneof the )arresting) officers had an" )personal no%ledge) of facts indicating thatpetitioner %as the gun+an %ho had shot Maguan. -he infor+ation upon %hich thepolice acted had been derived fro+ state+ents +ade b" alleged e"e%itnesses to theshooting one stated that petitioner %as the gun+an1 another %as able to taedo%n the alleged gun+an*s car*s plate nu+ber %hich turned out to be registered inpetitioner*s %ife*s na+e. -hat infor+ation did not, ho%ever, constitute )personal

no%ledge.)18

t is thus clear to the Court that there %as no la%ful %arrantless arrest of petitioner%ithin the +eaning of Section 9 of Rule ##. t is clear too that Section > of Rule ##!,%hich provides?

Sec. > $hen accused la"full% arrested "ithout "arrant . $hen a person is la"full% arrested "ithout a "arrant for an offenseco&nizable b% the Re&ional 'rial Court the co+plaint or infor+ation+a" be filed b" the offended part", peace officer or fiscal %ithout apreli+inar" investigation having been first conducted, on the basisof the affidavit of the offended part" or arresting office or person

2o%ever, before the filin& of such complaint or information, the person arrested ma% as( for a preliminar% investi&ation b% a proper officer in accordance %ith this Rule, but he +ust sign a %aiver ofthe provisions of Article #!9 of the Revised Penal Code, asa+ended, %ith the assistance of a la%"er and in case of non(availabilit" of a la%"er, a responsible person of his choice.Not"ithstandin& such "aiver, he ma% appl% for bailas provided inthe corresponding rule and the investigation +ust be ter+inated%ithin fifteen 4#95 da"s fro+ its inception.

If the case has been filed in court "ithout a preliminar%investi&ation havin& been first conducted, the accused ma% %ithin

3

8/11/2019 01. Go v. CA (1992)


five 495 da"s fro+ the ti+e he learns of the filing of the infor+ation,as( for a preliminar% investi&ation%ith the sa+e right to adduceevidence in his favor in the +anner prescribed in this Rule.4E+phasis supplied5

is also not applicable. ndeed, petitioner %as not arrested at all. &hen he %aled intoSan Juan Police Station, acco+panied b" t%o 4!5 la%"ers, he in fact placed hi+selfat the disposal of the police authorities. 2e did not state that he %as )surrendering)

hi+self, in all probabilit" to avoid the i+plication he %as ad+itting that he had slainEldon Maguan or that he %as other%ise guilt" of a cri+e. &hen the police filed aco+plaint for frustrated ho+icide %ith the Prosecutor, the latter should havei++ediatel" scheduled a preli+inar" investigation to deter+ine %hether there %asprobable cause for charging petitioner in court for the illing of Eldon Maguan.nstead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutor proceed under the erroneous suppositionthat Section > of Rule ##! %as applicable and reuired petitioner to %aive theprovisions of Article #!9 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carr"ing out apreli+inar" investigation. -his %as substantive error, for petitioner %as entitled to apreli+inar" investigation and that right should have been accorded hi+ %ithout an"conditions. Moreover, since petitioner had not been arrested, %ith or %ithout a%arrant, he %as also entitled to be released forth%ith sub;ect onl" to his appearing atthe preli+inar" investigation.

-urning to the second issue of %hether or not petitioner had %aived his right topreli+inar" investigation, %e note that petitioner had fro+ the ver" beginningde+anded that a preli+inar" investigation be conducted. As earlier pointed out, onthe sa+e da" that the infor+ation for +urder %as filed %ith the Regional -rial Court,petitioner filed %ith the Prosecutor an o+nibus +otion for i++ediate release andpreli+inar" investigation. -he Solicitor 'eneral contends that that o+nibus +otionshould have been filed %ith the trial court and not %ith the Prosecutor, and that thepetitioner should accordingl" be held to have %aived his right to preli+inar"investigation. &e do not believe that %aiver of petitioner*s statutor" right topreli+inar" investigation +a" be predicated on such a sli+ basis. -he preli+inar"investigation %as to be conducted b" the Prosecutor, not b" the Regional -rial Court.t is true that at the ti+e of filing of petitioner*s o+nibus +otion, the infor+ation for+urder had alread" been filed %ith the Regional -rial Court? it is not clear fro+ the

record %hether petitioner %as a%are of this fact at the ti+e his o+nibus +otion %asactuall" filed %ith the Prosecutor. n Crespo v . Mo&ul, 19 this Court held?

-he preli+inar" investigation conducted b" the fiscal for thepurpose of deter+ining %hether a prima facie case e:ists to%arranting the prosecution of the accused is ter+inated upon thefiling of the infor+ation in the proper court. n turn, as abovestated, the filin& of said information sets in motion the criminalaction a&ainst the accused in Court . Should the fiscal find it properto conduct a reinvesti&ation of the case, at such sta&e, the permission of the Court must be secured . !fter suchreinvesti&ation the findin& and recommendations of the fiscal

should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. &hile it istrue that the fiscal has the )uasi-*udicial discretion to deter+ine%hether or not a cri+inal case should be filed in court or not, oncethe case had alread" been brought to Court %hatever dispositionthe fiscal +a" feel should be proper in the case thereafter shouldbe addressed for the consideration of the Court. -he onl"ualification is that the action of the Court +ust not i+pair thesubstantial rights of the accused., or the right of the People to dueprocess of la%.

::: ::: :::

-he rule therefore in this ;urisdiction is that once a complaint orinformation is filed in Court an% disposition of the case +such as itsdismissal or the conviction or ac)uittal of the accused rests in thesound discretion of the Court . Although the fiscal retains thedirection and control of the prosecution of cri+inal cases even%hile the case is alread" in Court he cannot i+pose his opinion onthe trial court. -he Court is the best and sole ;udge on %hat to do%ith the case before it. . . . 20 4Citations o+itted1 e+phasissupplied5

Nonetheless, since petitioner in his o+nibus +otion %as asing forpreli+inar" investigation and not for a re( investigation 4Crespo v. Mogulinvolved a re-investi&ation,and since the Prosecutor hi+self did file %iththe trial court, on the 9th da" after filing the infor+ation for +urder, a +otionfor leave to conduct preli+inar" investigation 4attaching to his +otion a cop"of petitioner*s o+nibus +otion5, %e conclude that petitioner*s o+nibus+otion %as in effect filed %ith the trial court. &hat %as cr"stal clear %as thatpetitioner did as for a preli+inar" investigation on the ver" da" that theinfor+ation %as filed %ithout such preli+inar" investigation, and that the trialcourt %as five 495 da"s later apprised of the desire of the petitioner for suchpreli+inar" investigation. 7inall", the t rial court did in fact grant theProsecutor*s pra"er for leave to conduct preli+inar" investigation. -hus,

even on the 4+istaen5 supposition apparentl" +ade b" the Prosecutor thatSection > of Rule ##! of the Revised Court %as applicable, the 9(da"regle+entar" period in Section >, Rule ##! +ust be held to have beensubstantiall" co+plied %ith.

&e believe and so hold that petitioner did not %aive his right to a preli+inar"investigation. &hile that right is statutor" rather than constitutional in its funda+ent,since it has in fact been established b" statute, it is a co+ponent part of due processin cri+inal ;ustice. 21 -he right to have a preli+inar" investigation conducted beforebeing bound over to trial for a cri+inal offense and hence for+all" at ris ofincarceration or so+e other penalt", is not a +ere for+al or technical right1 it is asubstantive right. -he accused in a cri+inal trial is inevitabl" e:posed to prolongedan:iet", aggravation, hu+iliation, not to spea of e:pense1 the right to an opportunit"

4

8/11/2019 01. Go v. CA (1992)


to avoid a process painful to an" one save, perhaps, to hardened cri+inals, is avaluable right. -o den" petitioner*s clai+ to a preli+inar" investigation %ould be todeprive hi+ the full +easure of his right to due process.

-he uestion +a" be raised %hether petitioner still retains his right to a preli+inar"investigation in the instant case considering that he %as alread" arraigned on ! August #$$#. -he rule is that the right to preli+inar" investigation is %aived %hen theaccused fails to invoe it before or at the time of enterin& a pleaat arraign+ent. 22 n

the instant case, petitioner 'o had vigorousl" insisted on his right to preli+inar"investigation before his arrai&nment . At the ti+e of his arraign+ent, petitioner %asalread" before the Court of Appeals on certiorari , prohibition and mandamus precisel" asing for a preli+inar" investigation before being forced to stand trial.

Again, in the circu+stances of this case, %e do not believe that b" posting bailpetitioner had %aived his right to preli+inar" investigation. n People v . Selfaison, 23 %e did hold that appellants there had %aived their right to preli+inar" investigationbecause i++ediatel" after their arrest, the" filed bail and proceeded to trial )"ithout previousl% claimin& that the% did not have the benefit of a preliminar% investi&ation.) 2 n the instant case, petitioner 'o ased for release on recogni6ance or on bail andfor preli+inar" investigation in one o+nibus +otion. 2e had thus clai+ed his right topreli+inar" investigation before respondent Judge approved the cash bond posted

b" petitioner and ordered his release on #! Jul" #$$#. Accordingl", %e cannotreasonabl" i+pl" %aiver of preli+inar" investigation on the part of petitioner. n fact,%hen the Prosecutor filed a +otion in court asing for leave to conduct preli+inar"investigation, he clearl" if i+pliedl" recogni6ed that petitioner*s clai+ to preli+inar"investigation %as a legiti+ate one.

&e %ould clarif", ho%ever, that contrar" to petitioner*s contention the failure to accordpreli+inar" investigation, %hile constituting a denial of the appropriate and full+easure of the statutor" process of cri+inal ;ustice, did not i+pair the validit" of theinfor+ation for +urder nor affect the ;urisdiction of the trial court. 2

t +ust also be recalled that the Prosecutor had actuall" agreed that petitioner %asentitled to bail. -his %as euivalent to an acno%ledg+ent on the part of the

Prosecutor that the evidence of guilt then in his hands %as not strong. Accordingl",%e consider that the #> Jul" #$$# order of respondent Judge recalling his o%n ordergranting bail and reuiring petitioner to surrender hi+self %ithin fort"(eight 4@35 hoursfro+ notice, %as plainl" arbitrar" considering that no evidence at all and certainl"no ne" or additional evidence had been sub+itted to respondent Judge that couldhave ;ustified the recall of his order issued ;ust five 495 da"s before. t follo%s thatpetitioner %as entitled to be released on bail as a +atter of right.

-he final uestion %hich the Court +ust face is this? ho% does the fact that, in theinstant case, trial on the +erits has alread" co++enced, the Prosecutor havingalread" presented four 4@5 %itnesses, i+pact upon, firstl", petitioner*s right to apreli+inar" investigation and, secondl", petitioner*s right to be released on bailF 8oes

he continue to be entitled to have a preli+inar" investigation conducted in respect ofthe charge against hi+F 8oes petitioner re+ain entitled to be released on bailF

-urning first to the +atter of preli+inar" investigation, %e consider that petitionerre+ains entitled to a preli+inar" investigation although trial on the +erits has alread"began. -rial on the +erits should be suspended or held in abe"ance and apreli+inar" investigation forth%ith accorded to petitioner. 2- t is true that theProsecutor +ight, in vie% of the evidence that he +a" at this ti+e have on hand,

conclude that probable cause e:ists1 upon the other hand, the Prosecutorconceivabl" could reach the conclusion that the evidence on hand does not %arrant afinding of probable cause. n an" event, the constitutional point is that petitioner %asnot accorded %hat he %as entitled to b" %a" of procedural due process. 27 Petitioner%as forced to undergo arraign+ent and literall" pushed to trial %ithout preli+inar"investigation, %ith e:traordinar" haste, to the applause fro+ the audience that filledthe courtroo+. f he sub+itted to arraign+ent at trial, petitioner did so )icing andscrea+ing,) in a +anner of speaing . 8uring the proceedings held before the trialcourt on ! August #$$#, the date set for arraign+ent of petitioner, and ;ust beforearraign+ent, counsel +ade ver" clear petitioner*s vigorous protest and ob;ection tothe arraign+ent precisel" because of the denial of preli+inar" investigation. 28 Soenergetic and deter+ined %ere petitioner*s counsel*s protests and ob;ections that anobviousl" angered court and prosecutor dared hi+ to %ithdra% or %alout, pro+isingto replace hi+ %ith counsel de oficio. 8uring the trial, before the prosecution calledits first %itness, petitioner through counsel once again reiterated his ob;ection togoing to trial %ithout preli+inar" investigation? petitioner*s counsel +ade of record his)continuin& ob*ection.) 29 Petitioner had pro+ptl" gone to the appellate court oncertiorari and prohibition to challenge the la%fulness of the procedure he %as beingforced to undergo and the la%fulness of his detention. 30 f he did not %al out on thetrial, and if he cross(e:a+ined the prosecution*s %itnesses, it %as because he %ase:tre+el" loath to be represented b" counsel de oficio selected b" the trial ;udge,and to run the ris of being held to have %aived also his right to use %hat isfreuentl" the onl" test of truth in the ;udicial process.

n respect of the +atter of bail, %e si+ilarl" believe and so hold that petitionerre+ains entitled to be released on bail as a +atter of right. Should the evidencealread" of record concerning petitioner*s guilt be, in the reasonable belief of the

Prosecutor, strong, the Prosecutor +a" +ove in the trial court for cancellation ofpetitioner*s bail. t %ould then be up to the trial court, after a careful and ob;ectiveassess+ent of the evidence on record, to grant or den" the +otion for cancellation of bail.

-o reach an" other conclusions here, that is, to hold that petitioner*s rights to apreli+inar" investigation and to bail %ere effectivel" obliterated b" evidencesubseuentl" ad+itted into the record %ould be to legiti+i6e the deprivation of dueprocess and to per+it the 'overn+ent to benefit fro+ its o%n %rong or culpableo+ission and effectivel" to dilute i+portant rights of accused persons %ell(nigh to thevanishing point. t +a" be that to reuire the State to accord petitioner his rights to apreli+inar" investigation and to bail at this point, could turn out ulti+atel" to be

5

8/11/2019 01. Go v. CA (1992)


largel" a cere+onial e:ercise. But the Court is not co+pelled to speculate. And, inan" case, it %ould not be idle cere+on"1 rather, it %ould be a celebration b" the Stateof the rights and liberties of its o%n people and a re(affir+ation of its obligation anddeter+ination to respect those rights and liberties.

ACC0R8N'/G, the Court resolved to 'RAN- the Petition for Revie% on Certiorari .-he 0rder of the trial court dated #> Jul" #$$# is hereb" SE- AS8E andNH//7E8, and the 8ecision of the Court of Appeals dated ! Septe+ber #$$#

hereb" REERSE8.

-he 0ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor is hereb" 0R8ERE8 to conduct forth%ith apreli+inar" investigation of the charge of +urder against petitioner 'o, and toco+plete such preli+inar" investigation %ithin a period of fifteen 4#95 da"s f ro+co++ence+ent thereof. -he trial on the +erits of the cri+inal case in the Regional-rial Court shall be SHSPEN8E8 to a%ait the conclusion of the preli+inar"investigation.

Meanti+e, petitioner is hereb" 0R8ERE8 released forth%ith upon posting of a cashbail bond of 0ne 2undred -housand Pesos 4P#<<,<<<.<<5. -his release shall be%ithout pre;udice to an" la%ful order that the trial court +a" issue, should the 0fficeof the Provincial Prosecutor +ove for cancellation of bail at the conclusion of the

preli+inar" investigation.

No pronounce+ent as to costs. -his 8ecision is i++ediatel" e:ecutor".

S0 0R8ERE8.

6

01. go v. ca (1992)

Documents