July 1964 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > July 1964 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-23048 July 31, 1964 - IN RE: JESUS LAVA v. LT. COL. OSCAR C. GONZALES:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-23048. July 31, 1964.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR EX PARTE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. JESUS LAVA, Petitioner, v. LT. COL. OSCAR C. GONZALES, Chief Intelligence Officer of the Philippine Constabulary, Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUED UNDER DEFECTIVE INFORMATION; VALID WHERE INFORMATION AMENDED TO REMEDY DEFECT. — A warrant of arrest issued under an information defective because of an improper description of the offense may still be held valid where said information is later amended to describe the proper offense.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN ARREST MAY BE LEGAL DESPITE DEFECTIVE WARRANT. — Even if the warrant of arrest in question is defective, still petitioner’s arrest is legal, because an offender can be arrested without warrant under the circumstances mentioned in Sec. 6-b, Rule 113, Rev. Rules of Court.
3. ID.; NO NEW PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AFTER AMENDMENT OF INFORMATION INVOLVING NO CHANGE IN NATURE OF CRIME. — A new preliminary investigation is not necessary after the amendment of an information involving no change in the nature of the crime charged and the accused did not ask for a reinvestigation of the case within 5 days from the time he learned of the amended information.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN ARREST MAY BE LEGAL DESPITE DEFECTIVE WARRANT. — Even if the warrant of arrest in question is defective, still petitioner’s arrest is legal, because an offender can be arrested without warrant under the circumstances mentioned in Sec. 6-b, Rule 113, Rev. Rules of Court.
3. ID.; NO NEW PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AFTER AMENDMENT OF INFORMATION INVOLVING NO CHANGE IN NATURE OF CRIME. — A new preliminary investigation is not necessary after the amendment of an information involving no change in the nature of the crime charged and the accused did not ask for a reinvestigation of the case within 5 days from the time he learned of the amended information.
R E S O L U T I O N
PAREDES, J.:
The petition is DISMISSED, and the restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction prayed for should be, as it is hereby DENIED. Without costs.
The Warrant of Arrest issued by the Manila Court of First Instance in Criminal Case No. 19166 is Valid and Effective. The offense described in said Warrant of Arrest was "Rebellion Complex", but the information was amended and the petitioner can still be held guilty for simple rebellion (People v. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-8936, Oct. 23, 1956; People v. Romagosa, G.R. No. L-8476, Feb. 28, 1958; People v. Santos, G.R. No. L-11813, Sept. 17, 1958). A new preliminary investigation is not necessary after the amendment of the information, for the reason that there had been no change in the nature of the crime charged, which is rebellion, and moreover, the accused petitioner who was already in custody when the amended information was filed, should have asked, but did not, for a re-investigation of said case, within the period of five (5) days from the time he learned of the amended information (sec. 15, Rule 112, Rev. Rules). Granting arguendo, that the warrant of arrest in question is defective, still petitioner’s arrest is legal, because an offender can be taken into custody, by any officer of the law, or by any private individual even without any warrant of arrest, when an offense has in fact been committed and the arresting officer or individual, has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it (Sec. 6-b, Rule 113, Rev. Rules), and forthwith deliver the arrested person to the judicial authorities, as was done in this case (Sec. 17, ibid). Normally, a writ of preliminary injunction should not issue to restrain the prosecution of criminal offenses (Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, 41 Phil., 103; Gorospe v. Peñaflorida, L-11583, July 19, 1957). In view hereof, it is deemed unnecessary to pass upon the issues raised, in connection with the warrants of arrest in Criminal Case Nos. 2043 and 2044 of the Bulacan Court of First Instance.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur in the result.
The Warrant of Arrest issued by the Manila Court of First Instance in Criminal Case No. 19166 is Valid and Effective. The offense described in said Warrant of Arrest was "Rebellion Complex", but the information was amended and the petitioner can still be held guilty for simple rebellion (People v. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-8936, Oct. 23, 1956; People v. Romagosa, G.R. No. L-8476, Feb. 28, 1958; People v. Santos, G.R. No. L-11813, Sept. 17, 1958). A new preliminary investigation is not necessary after the amendment of the information, for the reason that there had been no change in the nature of the crime charged, which is rebellion, and moreover, the accused petitioner who was already in custody when the amended information was filed, should have asked, but did not, for a re-investigation of said case, within the period of five (5) days from the time he learned of the amended information (sec. 15, Rule 112, Rev. Rules). Granting arguendo, that the warrant of arrest in question is defective, still petitioner’s arrest is legal, because an offender can be taken into custody, by any officer of the law, or by any private individual even without any warrant of arrest, when an offense has in fact been committed and the arresting officer or individual, has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it (Sec. 6-b, Rule 113, Rev. Rules), and forthwith deliver the arrested person to the judicial authorities, as was done in this case (Sec. 17, ibid). Normally, a writ of preliminary injunction should not issue to restrain the prosecution of criminal offenses (Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, 41 Phil., 103; Gorospe v. Peñaflorida, L-11583, July 19, 1957). In view hereof, it is deemed unnecessary to pass upon the issues raised, in connection with the warrants of arrest in Criminal Case Nos. 2043 and 2044 of the Bulacan Court of First Instance.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur in the result.
