Go v CA; G.R. No. 101837; 11 Feb 1992; 206 SCRA 138

FACTS:
Petitioner, in a case of road rage, shot the victim and fled the scene. After establishing that that petitioner was probably the assailant, the police launched a manhunt. Six days after the shooting, petitioner presented himself before the police to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police. He was immediately detained.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not petitioner’s warrantless arrest was valid.

RULING:
NO. Petitioner’s “arrest” took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The arresting officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the “arrest” effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected “when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed” within the meaning of Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the “arresting” officers had any “personal knowledge” of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan.

Petitioner is ORDERED released upon posting of a cash bail bond without prejudice to any lawful order that the trial court may issue, should the Provincial Prosecutor move for cancellation of bail at the conclusion of the preliminary investigation.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *