10. People vs.

Escordial founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith

G.R. Nos. 138934-35
(January 16, 2002)
FACTS:
The complainant, Michelle Darunday, was living with
Erma Blanca, and Ma. Teresa Gellaver. On the night
of the incident, Erma was awakened by the presence
of a man. The man had his head covered with a t-shirt
to prevent identification and carried a knife about four
inches long and asked where the money was. Erma
Blanca and Michelle Darunday gave the money
because they were threatened by the man to be killed.
The assailant then blindfolded Michelle and began to
rape her. After satisfying his lust, the assailant
conversed for a while with complainants. The accused,
threatening to call his companions, then, again, raped
the complainant in the other orifice of the
complainant’s nether regions. Accused then warned
the women not to report or else they would be killed.
After 30 mins. The complainants told their neighbor of
what happened. Then they told the owner of the
boarding house what happened who then told the
police.
on the part of the peace officer making the arrest.
Here, in question of the “Personal Knowledge”, the
police were not at the scene of the crime when it
happened, therefore “Personal Knowledge” does not
apply. Furthermore, there was ample time for police
to procure a warrant and no reason for them not to
obtain one. This deficiency is, however, cured once
accused-appellant submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court and not questioning the
invalidity of the arrest.
The accused-appellant, having been the focus of
attention by the police after he had being pointed by
a Ramie as the possible suspect of the crime, was
already under custodial investigation when these out-
of-court identifications were conducted by the police.
Thereby all questions answered by accused-appellant
is hereby deemed as hearsay. Furthermore, his right
to counsel was violated. Hence, evidence is
inadmissible in court.
Hence, it is found that the prosecution has failed to
meet the degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt
required in a criminal case.

Physical description of the assailant was given by the In lieu of the above mentioned, the Supreme Court
complainant at the police station. Police found that the hereby reverses the sentence and acquits the
descriptions given by the complainant fit that of a accused-appellant
worker in the Coffee Break Corner, where the accused
was employed. Heading there, the police asked of the
accused whereabouts which was, as they were told,
watching a basketball game. The police arrested the
accused (w/o warrant) and proceeded to the police
station where he saw the complainant and
inadvertently blushed. Complainant then identified
him based on the marks on the neck and matched
other physical descriptions. Court of first instance
ruled that accused is found guilty of robbery and rape
with no mitigating circumstances and is hereby
sentenced with maximum penalty of death.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest was

valid?

HELD: NO.

The accused-appellant was watching a basketball

game when he was seized therefore he was not 1.) In
flagrante delicto 2.) He was not an escaped convict 3)
the arrest was not after direct consummation of the
crime.

The question here is whether these cases fall under

paragraph (b) because the police officers had personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead
them to believe that accused-appellant had just
committed a crime. The phrase “personal knowledge”
in paragraph Section 5(b) of Rule 113 has been
defined that personal knowledge of facts in arrests
without a warrant must be based upon “probable
cause” which means “an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion.

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the

absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense is based on actual
facts. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be