PEOPLE V JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
FACTS:
1. Alonzo stopped his tricycle by the side of a drug store. 1 and a half meter
from him was the tricycle of Joseltio. Alonzo saw 2 men grappling for the
possession of the bag of the woman. One of the 2 men shot the woman in
the head.
2. The bag taken by the man was brought to the tryc of the accused where
someone inside received the bag and the armed man sat behind Joselito.
Joselito then sped away.
3. Joselito’s version: he was hired for to drive a certain Boy Santos to a cockpit
however, Boy asked him to go to a drug store and there, Jun alighted from
the tryc and accosted the woman. Joselito tried to ask for help but Boy, who
stayed in the tryc, threatened him. And that if he ever informed the police,
they would harm his family.
4. Joselito, Jun, Boy Santos, and Dodong were charged with special complex
crime of Robeery with Homicide for having robbed Virginia, a 66-year old
businesswoman, of 200,000 in cash and jewelry and on occasion thereof
shot and killed her.
5. Court a quo found Joselito guilty as charged and sentenced him to death.
ISSUE: WON Joselito’s arrest was unlawful since there was no warrant
thereof?
HELD:
1. It must be recalled that del Rosario was arrested during the police raid at
the place of Jun Marquez. A day after the incident.
2. In People vs Sucro we held that when a police officer sees the offense,
although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may effect an arrest without a
warrant on the basis of Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, since the offense is
deemed committed in his presence or within his view. In essence, Sec. 5,
par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused be caught in flagrante
delicto  or caught immediately after the consummation of the act. 
a. The arrest of del Rosario is obviously outside the purview of the
aforequoted rule since he was arrested on the day following the
commission of the robbery with homicide.
3. On the other had, Sec 5 par. (b) Rule 113 necessitates two requirements
before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has just  been
committed; and (2) the person making the arrest has personal
knowledge 
committed it.
a. Hence, there must be a large measure of immediacy  between
the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest,
and if there was an appreciable lapse of time between the
arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest
must be secured.
b. In this case, the arrest came a day after the consummation of
the crime and not immediately after.
4. Aside from the sense of immediacy, it is also mandatory that the person
making the arrest must have personal knowledge  of certain facts
indicating that the person to be taken into custody has committed the
crime.
a. The arresting officer officers had no personal knowledge of facts
since they were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses
to the crim, and they became aware of his identity as the driver
only during custodial investigation
5. However the conspicuous illegality of del Rosario's arrest cannot affect
the jurisdiction of the courta quo  because even in instances not allowed
by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any
objection thereto is waived when the person arrested submits to
arraignment without any objection, as in this case.
6. Del Rosario’s defense of irresistible force was proven clearly since he
was threatened and a gun was directly pointed at him. In other wors, he
was just an instrument acting involuntarily against his will.
DISPOSITIVE: ACQUITTED.