CRIMPRO RULE 113

JOEY M. PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, G.R. No. 182601

MIGUEL GACES, JERRY FERNANDEZ AND Date: November 10, 2014
RONALD MUNOZ, Petitioners, v. MORENO Ponente: BRION, J
GENEROSO AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents
JOEY M. PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, MORENO GENEROSO AND PEOPLE OF THE
MIGUEL GACES, JERRY FERNANDEZ AND PHILIPPINES, Respondents
RONALD MUNOZ, Petitioners,

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the decision dated January
21, 2008 and the resolution dated April 17, 2008 of the Court of Appeals(CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 91541.

The appealed decision affirmed the Order dated March 16, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
96, Quezon City, denying Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez, and Ronald
Munoz's (petitioners) Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation, as well as their subsequent
motion for reconsideration.
FACTS
Case timeline:

The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular
Preliminary Investigation on the ground that there no valid warrantless 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.

Petitioner’s contentions:
1) Petitioners aver that they were not validly arrested without a warrant.
ISSUE/S
I. WON they were validly arrested without a warrant -YES
RATIO
The petitioners were validly arrested without 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.
RULING
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.
Notes

DIAO
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014novemberdecisions.php?id=1068