Pestilos v Generoso

G.R. No. 182601 | SCRA | November 10, 2014 | Brion, J.

Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Petitioners: Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez and Ronald
Muoz
Respondents: Moreno Generoso and People of the Philippines
DOCTRINE

In order to apply hot pursuit, following must be present: 1) the crime should have
been just committed; and 2) the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by
the standard of probable cause to be determined from the facts and circumstances
within his personal knowledge
Relevant Provision
a. Rule 113 Sec 5 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

b.

c.

FACTS
1. Facts
a.

2.

3.

On February 20, 2005, at around 3: 15 in the morning, an altercation ensued

between the petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso at Kasiyahan Street,
Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City
b. Atty. Generoso called the Central Police District, Station 6 to report
a. Desk Officer dispatched SP02 Dominador Javier and 2 others to go to
the scene of the crime and to render assistance
b. Epon arrival less than one hour after the alleged altercation, they saw
Atty. Generoso badly beaten
c. Invited petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation
a. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found
that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon
b. Petitioners were indicted for attempted murder
Cause of Controversy
a. Petitioner: (I) Alleged that no valid warrantless arrest took place since the police
officers had no personal knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the crime.
(II) Alleged that they were just "invited" to the police station. Thus, inquest
proceeding was improper, and a regular procedure for preliminary investigation
should have been performed
b. Respondent: Warrantless arrest valid
Lower Courts Ruling
a. Trial Court- Denied Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation
b. CA- Denied. Invited carried the meaning of command.

ISSUES
1. W/N the warrantless arrest under the aforementioned circumstance is valid- YES
RULING & RATIO
a. There are three elements to apply the doctrine of hot pursuit. (I) Probable cause, (II)
offense has just been committed and (III) arresting officer's personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime

The probable cause referred here requires less quantum of proof than that
of probable cause that the judge needs to have before issuing warrant of
arrest.
b. Refers only to actual facts or raw evidence personally gathered within a
limited time frame
c. 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
d. Reason for immediacy: As the time gap from the commission of the crime to
the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become
contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay
Element are present in this case
a. The police blotter stated that the alleged crime was committed at 3:15 a.m
and the blotter was timed at 4:15 AM. Hence, arrest was less than half an
hour.
b. Petitioners admitted that they caused the bruises on Atty Generosos body
but claimed that they did it for self-defense
c. Sec 5 (B) does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was
being committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the
crime is patent and the officer had a probable cause that person to be
arrested has recently committed
Term invited construed to mean authoritative command
a. Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint
or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and the intent of
the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is
necessary
b. Furthermore, SP02 Javier had informed the petitioners, at the time of their
arrest, of the charges against them before taking them
a.

DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition, and hereby

AFFIRM the decision dated January 21, 2008 and the resolution dated April 17, 2008
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91541. The City Prosecutor of Quezon City
is hereby ORDERED to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

NOTE:
Brief History of Warrantless Arrest and Section 5 (B) doctrine of hot pursuit
The constitutional mandate against unreasonable search and seizure is identical with the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment traces its origins to the writings
of Sir Edward Coke and The Great Charter of the Liberties of England (Magna Carta Libertatum). Thus, it was
stated in the Magna Carta Libertatum:
No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free
Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn
him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land, We will sell to no man, we will not deny or
defer to any man either Justice or Right
In our jurisdiction, early rulings of the Court have acknowledged the validity of warrantless arrests.
The Court based these rulings on the common law of America and England that, according to the Court, were
not different from the Spanish laws
Section 5 (B) reflects the doctrine of hot pursuit. Prior to the 1940 Rules of Court, it was not
necessary for the arresting officer to first have knowledge that a crime was actually committed. What was
necessary was the presence of reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act having the
characteristics of a crime. However, 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." Under the 1985 Rules of Court however, it added a
qualification that the commission of the offense should not only have been "committed" but should have been
"just committed." This was done to prevent arrests based merely on heasay.

Page 1 of 1