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.

People v Gerente (1993, G.R. Nos. 95847-48)

People v Gabriel Gerente

G.R. Nos. 95847-48. March 10, 1993

 

Facts:

In April 1990, policemen received a report of a mauling incident and after receiving reports from the hospital officials, and they went to the scene of the crime. They arrested Gerente 3 hours after Gerente and his companions killed Blace. Blace was found dead in the hospital where they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. 

 

 

Issue: W/N the warrantless arrest was valid.

 

Held: The warrantless arrest was valid since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did.

 

The search conducted on Gerente's person was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest (Section 12, Rule 126). The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.

People v Tirso Acol (1994, GR Nos. 106288-89)

 

People v Tirso Acol

G.R. Nos. 106288-89, May 17, 1994

 

Facts:

            Pio Boses and Tirso Acol were apprehended after they allegedly staged a hold-up inside a jeep in September 1990, but they were charged for possession of two unlicensed firearms and bullets. 

 

            After the hold-up, the passengers of the jeep went to report the incident to the police, who searched Fort Bonifacio, saw four men, two of whom were Boses and Acol. They found guns in their possession and a jacket owned by one of the victims. They were apprehended but Acol escaped during trial. 

 

Issue: W/N the arrest was valid despite the lack of warrant of arrest. 

 

Held: The arrest is a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(b) of Rule 113.

 

Inasmuch as the police team was formed and dispatched to look for the persons responsible for the crime on account of the information relayed by the victims.

 

Since Acol's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental thereto was valid. Moreover, the unlicensed firearms were found when the police team apprehended the accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.