Pestilos et al v Generoso and People (2014, G.R. No. 182601)

Joey Pestilos et al v Atty. Moreno Generoso and People

G.R. No. 182601 November 10, 2014

 

 

Facts:

            In February 2005, petitioners, and Atty. Generoso had an altercation in the latter’s house, and the latter called the police who came to render assistance. The police saw Generoso badly beaten. Generoso pointed to the petitioners as the ones who mauled him, thus the police “invited” them to Batasan Hills Police Station.

 

            They allegedly stabbed Generoso, but the latter survived. As such, the petitioners were charged with attempted murder. 

 

    They alleged that no valid warrantless arrest took place since the police officers had no personal knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the crime. They also claimed that they were just "invited" to the police station. Thus, the inquest proceeding was improper, and a regular procedure for preliminary investigation should have been performed pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

 

Issue: W/N the “invitation” by the police was a valid warrantless arrest.

 

Held: There was valid warrantless arrest.

The arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his alleged mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners85 and Atty. Generoso lived almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident with Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a different version of what transpired.

With these facts and circumstances 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 until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners' warrantless arrests. These circumstances were well within the police officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the time of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police officers' personal observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless arrests.

 

 

Doctrine:

 

-       History of warrantless arrests:

o   Prior to the 1940 Rules, the actual commission of the offense was not necessary in determining the validity of the warrantless arrest. Too, the arresting officer's determination of probable cause (or reasonable suspicion) applied both as to whether a crime has been committed and whether the person to be arrested has committed it.

o   Under the 1940 and the 1964 Rules of Court, the Rules required that there should be actual commission of an offense, thus, removing the element of the arresting officer's "reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offense." Additionally, the determination of probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, was limited only to the determination of whether the person to be arrested has committed the offense.

o   More restrictive 1985 Rules of Court: it added a qualification that the commission of the offense should not only have been "committed" but should have been "just committed." This limited the arresting officer's time frame for investigation.

§  Changes adopted to minimize arrests based on hearsay:

·      1) the contemplated offense was qualified by the word "just," connoting immediacy; and

·       2) the warrantless arrest of a person sought to be arrested should be based on probable cause to be determined by the arresting officer based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.