Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 5. The following must be present for a valid warrantless arrest:
1. In Abelita III v. Doria, et al., the Court held that personal knowledge of facts a. the crime should have been just committed; and
must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or b. the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable
reasonable grounds of suspicion. cause to be determined from the facts & circumstances w/in his personal knowledge.
2. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of 6. Here, there was a valid warrantless arrest
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to a. The arrest took place less than one hour from the time of the occurrence of the crime.
be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on i. Based on the police blotter entry taken at 4:15 a.m, he police blotter stated that the
actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in alleged crime was committed at 3:15 a.m.
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of person to be arrested. ii. CA finding that the arrest took place 2hrs after commission of crime is unfounded.
ii. Probable cause under Sec 5b, Rule 113 distinguished from probable cause in b. The arresting officers' personal observation of Atty. Generoso's bruises when they arrived
preliminary investigations and judicial proceeding for issuance of a warrant of arrest at the scene of the crime is corroborated by the petitioners' admissions that Atty. Generoso
1. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: probable cause as the existence of facts indeed suffered blows from petitioner; also corroborated by the Medico-Legal Certificate
and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, c. the alleged crime transpired in a community where the parties reside
acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the d. Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his mauling and,
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. notably, they all lived almost in the same neighborhood;
a. based on the submitted documents of the complainant, the e. When the petitioners were confronted by the officers, they did not deny their participation in
respondent and his witnesses. the incident, although they narrated a different version of what transpired.
2. WARRANT OF ARREST: probable cause in judicial proceedings for the f. Further, soon after the report of the incident occurred, SPO1 Monsalve immediately
issuance of a warrant of arrest is defined as the existence of such facts dispatched the arresting officer, SPO2 Javier, to render personal assistance to the victim —
and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent This fact alone negates the petitioners' argument that the police officers did not have
person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person personal knowledge that a crime had been committed
sought to be arrested. 7. With these facts and circumstances, we deem it reasonable to conclude that the police
a. based on the evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that a officers had personal knowledge of facts justifying the petitioners' warrantless arrests.
crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is a. These circumstances were well within the police officers' observation, perception and
probably guilty thereof. evaluation at the time of the arrest.
3. RULE 113, WARRANTLESS ARREST: the existence of such facts and b. These circumstances qualify as the police officers’ personal observation, which are within
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless arrests.
person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person c. Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited provision,
sought to be arrested or held for trial, as the case may be. does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being committed; it is
a. ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by enough that evidence of the recent commission of the crime is patent (as in this case) and
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a the police officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed the crime.
offense with which he is charged, or an actual belief or reasonable 8. Term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest is construed to mean as an authoritative command
ground of suspicion, based on actual facts. a. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission
b. based on his personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the to the custody of the person making the arrest.
person sought to be arrested has committed the crime. b. Thus, application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal
c. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable declaration of arrest is not required.
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the arresting officers c. Notwithstanding the term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest, SPO2 Javier could not but have
b. Second and Third Elements: The crime has just been committed/personal knowledge the intention of arresting the petitioners following Atty. Generoso's account.
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it d. Application of actual force would be an alternative if petitioners had exhibited resistance.
i. Based on a long line of jurisprudence, it appears that the Court's appreciation of the 9. The Order denying the motion for preliminary investigation is valid.
elements that "the offense has just been committed" and "personal knowledge of a. We do not see any taint of impropriety or grave abuse of discretion in this Order.
facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it" depended on
the particular circumstances of the case.
ii. "personal knowledge of facts or circumstances” Disposition: Petition denied.
1. The phrase covers facts or, in the alternative, circumstances.
2. Black's Law Dictionary: “circumstances are attendant or accompanying
facts, events or conditions."
3. 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.
iii. 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.
4. However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts should be made
immediately after the commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of immediacy.
a. REASON: 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.
b. the officer's determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited to
raw/uncontaminated facts/circumstances, gathered as they were w/in a limited period