Posted by: Yvonne a. Bioyo, 01 Dec 2018
FACTS:
At 3:15 in the morning, an altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty. Generoso. The latter called the police station to report the incident. Acting on the report, SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SPO2 Javier, with the augmentation personnel from the Airforce, A2C Sayson and Galvez, to go to the scene and render assistance. They arrived at the scene and saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. The latter pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled him. This prompted the police officers to "invite" the petitioners to go to the police station for investigation. At the inquest proceeding, the prosecutor found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon, but the latter fortunately survived. Petitioners were indicted for attempted murder.
The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that they had not been lawfully arrested. 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. The RTC denied the motion and also the motion for reconsideration. The petitioners challenged the lower court's ruling before the CA on a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. They attributed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the RTC for the denial of their motion for preliminary investigation. The appellate court dismissed the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant.
HELD:
YES. To summarize, 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 petitioners 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.
This is also similar to what happened in People v. Tonog, Jr.89 where Tonog did not flee but voluntarily went with the police officers. More than this, the petitioners in the present case even admitted to have been involved in the incident with Atty. Generoso, although they had another version of what transpired.
In determining the reasonableness of the warrantless arrests, it is incumbent upon the courts to consider if the police officers have complied with the requirements set under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically, the requirement of immediacy; the police officer's personal knowledge of facts or circumstances; and lastly, the propriety of the determination of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested committed the crime.
To reiterate, personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited provision, 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 (as in this case) and the police officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed the crime.
#END
