SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

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, vs. LT. COL. OSCAR C. GONZALES, Chief Intelligence Officer of the Philippine Constabulary, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N S

PAREDES, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

The petition is DISMISSED, and the restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction prayed for should be, as it is hereby DENIED. Without costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 has been no change in the nature of the crime charged, which is rebellion, and moreover, the accused petitioner who was already custody when the amended was filed, should have asked, but did not, for a re-investigation of said case, within the period 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. Pe�aflorida, 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 Cases Nos. 2043 and 2044 of the Bulacan Court of First Instance.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur in the result.