Pestilos vs generoso

Facts;

 There was an altercation between generoso and petitioner

o He got mauled and stabbed –
 Called the police, they arrived less than an hour later
o Police saw generoso badly beaten
o Generoso pointed out that petitioners were the perps
 The police invited the petitioners to go to the police station, to which the acceded
 Thereafter petitioners were subject of an inquest and an information for attempted murder was
filed
o In response, petitioners tried to file an urgent motion for regular preliminary
investigation on the grounds;
 That police had no personal knowledge
 That the arrest was without a warrant
 Rtc denied, ca sustained

Issues;

 w/n the warrantless arrest was valid

 w/n the arrest was lawful since they were only invited by police
 w/n the motion for PI was validly denied

Ruling;

 RTC order affirmed

 Arrest was valid
o Discussed history and jurisprudence allowing warrantless arrests (us jurisprudence)
 Led to sec 5 rule 113 ROCP
 In presence of arrexting officer, crime committed/actually committing
or attempted to commit
 Personal knowledge of probable cause to arrest person when crime has
just been committed
o Probable cause based on his personal knowledge
o Pertains to actual facts or raw evidence
o There needs to be an urgency to arrest, such that the officer has
no time to base their probable cause finding on facts or
circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation
 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another
 The police had personal knowledge because they were immediately
sent to the scene of the crime, clear evidence that a crime was
committed