PESTILOS V.

PEOPLE
GR 182601, November 10 , 2014

ACTS:
The petitioners were prosecuted for attempted murder. The petitioners they
filed a motion urgent for an investigation Preliminary regularly with
the argument that was not carried out no arrest without a warrant . The
RTC denied the motion and the CA affirmed the denial .
The records they show that there was an altercation between the petitioners and
Atty. Brown generous . The latter called the
Central Police District to report the incident and, acting in this report, SPO1 SPO2
Javier Monsalve sent out to the crime scene and lend assistance. SPO2 along
with increasedpersonnel arrived at the scene of the crime less than an
hour after the alleged altercation and saw Atty. Generous badly beaten.
Atty Then , Generous he pointed to the petitioners as those
who attacked him, prompting the police to "invite" the petitioners to go to
the police station to investigate. In the process of the investigation , the city prosecutor found that
the petitioners They stabbed Atty. Generous with a weapon sharpthat fortunately He
survived the attack .
The petitioners they claim that they were not arrested validly without a court order .

PROBLEM:
Do the petitioners are arrested validly without a warrant when police officers did
not witness the crime and came just less than an hour after the alleged altercation ?

DECISION:
Yes, the petitioners were validly Arrested without a warrant . Section 5
(b), Rule 113 Rules Revised Criminal Procedure provides that:
When just he committed a crime and has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
The person to be arrested has committed it .
Elements of Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure Revised are: first,
they just committing a crime; and second , the agent who arrested him has a probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person arrested has committed.
The appreciation of the Court of the elements of that "crime has just been committed" and
the knowledge personal of the facts and the circumstances the
person arrested committed it "depended on the circumstances particular of
the case . The element of " personal knowledge of facts orcircumstances "however, under Sectio
n5 (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure Revised it
requires a clarification . The circumstances they can belonging to events or actions within
the real perception, personal assessment or observation Police Officer at the crime scene. Therefore
, even though thepolice officer has not seen anyone run
away in reality , still might make an arrest without a warrant if, based in its personal evaluation of
the circumstances at the crime scene, could Determine the existence of probable cause that the
person sought. Upon arrest, you have committed the crime .
However, the determination of the probable cause and
the compilation of facts or circumstances must perform immediately after the commission of
the crime to comply with the element of immediacy . In other words,
the decisive factor in the element of " personal knowledge of facts or circumstances"is
the element required of immediacy within which they must be gather these facts or circumstances .
With the facts and circumstances of the case in the bar
that police officers met and have observed personally less than an
hour from the time when they arrived at the crime scene , it is reasonable conclude that
the police officers they had personal knowledge of
the facts and circumstances that justify thearrests without a judicial order from the petitioners .
Therefore,
the petitioners were arrested validly and subsequent investigation procedure was equally appropriate
.