Case Digest (G.R. No. 182601)
Facts:
Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez and Ronald Munoz v. Moreno Generoso and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.On February 20, 2005 at about 3:15 a.m. an altercation occurred on Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City between petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso. Atty. Generoso reported the incident to the Batasan Hills Police Station; Desk Officer SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SPO2 Dominador Javier and augmentation personnel to the scene, arriving within an hour and finding Atty. Generoso badly beaten. Atty. Generoso pointed to the petitioners as his assailants; the police officers then "invited" the petitioners to accompany them to the station. At the station an inquest was conducted and, two days later, an Information for attempted murder was filed on February 22, 2005.
On March 7, 2005 the petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 96, Quezon City, arguing they were not validly arrested without a warrant and thus were entitled to preliminary investigation under Rule 112. On March 16, 2005 the RTC denied the motion, concluding the allegations were evidentiary and preferring speedy disposition. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the RTC was likewise denied.
The petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. In its January 21, 2008 decision the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, holding the word “invited” in the Affidavit of Arrest signified a command and that the arrest was a valid warrantless ar...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were the petitioners validly arrested without a warrant under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?
- Were the petitioners lawfully arrested when they were merely “invited” to the police precinct?
- Is the RTC Order denying the petitioners’ Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation void for failure to state clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it was based (Article VIII, Section...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)