Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No.
182601, 10 November 2014
Facts: The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion
for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that there is no valid warrantless arrest
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.
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:
Whether or not the petitioners validly arrested without a 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 a 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 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.
