Pestilos v Generoso GR No. 182601
ISSUE: W/N there is valid warrantless arrest
FACTS:
In the morning, an altercation ensued between the petitioners and At ty. Moreno Generoso. Atty. Generoso called the Central Police District, Station to report the incident. Acting on this report, Desk SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SP02 Javier to go to the scene of the crime and to render assistance. SP02 Javier, together with augmentation personnel from the Airforce, A2C Alano Sayson and Airman Ruel Galvez, arrived at the scene of the crime less than one hour after the alleged altercation and they saw Atty. Generoso badly beate. Atty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled him. This prompted the police officers to "invite" the petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation. The petitioners went with the police officers to Batasan Hills Police Station. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon. Atty. Generoso fortunately survived the attack. The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder The petitioners primarily argue that they were not lawfully arrested. No arrest warrant was ever issued; they went to the police station only as a response to the arresting officers' invitation. The petitioners also claim that no valid warrantless arrest took place under the terms of Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. The incident happened two (2) hours before the police officers actually arrived at the crime scene. The police officers could not have undertaken a valid warrantless arrest as they had no personal knowledge that the petitioners were the authors of the crime.
RULING: Yes.The court held that petitioners were validly arrest without warrant. The requirements of a warrantless arrest are now summarized in Rule 113, Section 5 which states that: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) 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; and (c) 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. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forth with delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) above has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest. 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 sought to be arrested has committed the crime. 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.
