Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c4db5?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[JESUS LAVA v. LT. COL. OSCAR C. GONZALES](http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c4db5?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c4db5}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-23048, Jul 31, 1964 ]

JESUS LAVA v. LT. COL. OSCAR C. GONZALES +

RESOLUTION

120 Phil. 635

[ G.R. No. L-23048, July 31, 1964 ]

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

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 vs. Gceonimo, 160 Phil., 90; People vs. Romagona, 103 Phil., 20; People vs. Santos, 104 Phil., 551). 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 vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil., 103; Gorospe vs. Peñaflorida, 101 Phil., 886). 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.

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


tags