Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROLITO GO Y TAMBUNTING v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
This course of action was also taken by the Court in a catena of other cases including Go v. Court of Appeals,[58] Yusop v. Sandiganbayan,[59] Rodis, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan,[60] and Agustin v. People.[61]
	GR No. 182601 2014-11-10	JOEY M. PESTILOS v. MORENO GENEROSO BRION, J.
In Rolito Go v. CA,[72] the arrest of the accused six (6) days after the commission of the crime was held invalid because the crime had not just been committed. Moreover, the "arresting" officers had no "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that the accused was the gunman who had shot the victim. The information upon which the police acted came from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting; one stated that the accused was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in the name of the accused's wife. That information did not constitute "personal knowledge."
	AM NO. MTJ-04-1532 2005-06-27	THELMA ALMONTE v. JUDGE FRED A. BIEN GARCIA, J.
On May 20, 2002, complainant, through counsel, filed in Criminal Case No. 4598 a Motion To Quash Or Cancel The Order Dated April 24, 2004 Directing The Issuance Of The Warrant Of Arrest Of Accused Herein And Fixing The Bail Bond For Their Provisional Liberty And The Warrant Of Arrest Itself.[3] However, in his order of June 25, 2002,[4] the respondent judge denied the motion, relying on the ruling of this Court in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals[5] that once an accused posted his bail bond, he thereby waived his right to question any defect in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.