Joey M.
Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez and
Ronald Muoz v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014
Brion, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder. Petitioners filed an Urgent
Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that there no valid
warrantless took place. The RTC denied the motion and the CA affirmed the
denial.
Records show that an altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty.
Moreno Generoso. The latter called the Central Police District to report the
incident and acting on this report, SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SPO2 Javier to
go to the scene of the crime and render assistance. SPO2, together with
augmentation personnel arrived at the scene of the crime less than one hour
after the alleged altercation and saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. sought to be arrested has committed the crime.
Atty. Generoso then pointed the petitioners as those who mauled him which
prompted the police officers to invite the petitioners to go to the police station
for investigation. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor found that the
petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon who fortunately
survived the attack.
Petitioners aver that they were not validly arrested without a warrant.
ISSUE:
Are the petitioners validly arrested without warrant when the police officers did
not witness the crime and arrived only less than an hour after the alleged
altercation?
HELD:
YES, the petitioners were validly arrested without warrant. Section 5(b), Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:
When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it.
The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure are: first, an offense has just been committed; and second, the
arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
The Court's appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just been
committed" and ''personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the
person to be arrested committed it" depended on the particular circumstances
of the case. The element of ''personal knowledge of facts or circumstances",
however, under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure requires clarification. Circumstances may pertain to events or
actions within the actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the
police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer
has not seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest
if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the
crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person
However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or
circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime
in order to comply with the element of immediacy. In other words, the clincher
in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the
required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances
should be gathered.
With the facts and circumstances of the case at bar that the police officers
gathered and which they have personally observed less than one hour from
the time that they have arrived at the scene of the crime, it is reasonable to
conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances justifying the petitioners warrantless arrests.
Hence, the petitioners were validly arrested and the subsequent inquest
proceeding was likewise appropriate.