Hot Pursuit Arrests Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

26 Monday NOV 2012

POSTED BY GARVANGUELLE IN LEGALISTIC
Tags: criminal law, Criminal Procedure, crimlaw, Hot Pursuit Arrests, Lawful arrests, people v.
burgos, people v. doria,people v. encinada,personal knowledge,probable cause, Rule 113
Section 5, sayo v. chief of police, Section 5(b)
Picture this scenario: One dark, gloomy October evening, the silence of your sleepy barangay
was broken by four gunshots and a scream. Aroused by the noise, SPO1 Eseng rushes to the
house where the noises came from. The distinct smell of gunpowder and blood permeate the
rustic October air. When SPO1 Eseng arrives at the scene of the crime, barangay tanods have
already gathered on the houses patio. They inform him that three members of theakyat bahay
gang have robbed and killed the unfortunate owners of the house. Suddenly, a loud crash is
heard, the backdoor of the house flies through the air and four dark figures dash through the
hedges behind the house. SPO1 Eseng and the two of the tanods run after the felons.
The chase leads them to a populated street busy with night-goers. They lose sight of the three
hooded figures when they make a blind turn in an eskinita. And arising from the darkness of the
unlit alley, the law enforcers behold three men, walking calmly along the side of the street,
wearing hooded jackets similar to the ones worn by the akyat bahay members, with their hands
tucked inside their baggy pants pockets as if they were hiding something. They were unable to
see the faces of the cold-hearted gang members, and the only distinct if you can even call it
distinct characteristic that they remember about the suspects was that they were wearing
jackets. Can SPO1 Eseng and thebarangay tanods lawfully arrest the three shady characters?
Distraught in my desk, my poor undergraduate self kept wondering what Rule 113, Section 5(b)
meant by personal knowledge. It was what we law students called a shotgun question
owing to the quick reloading mechanism of the pump-barrel shotgun that law enforcement
employs for its high stopping power and one that our Criminal Law professor employed
effectively in his other classes. We were somewhat fortunate to have gathered intel informing
us that we would be asked about the meaning of personal knowledge as contemplated by
Rule 113, Section 5 (a) and (b), but we had yet to come up with a decent answer for the
question.
Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court enumerates the three instances in which an arrest
can be made without a warrant. It reads:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant when lawful. A peace officer or private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person;
(a)
When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b)
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c)
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Paragraph A requires no further exposition. What the law meant by in his presence is that the
arresting officer or the citizen making an arrest should have perceived by any of his senses (6th
sense not included) that a crime has been committed, and he goes to the scene of the crime to
effect the arrest. Thus when a blind person walking at 3pm across Carriedo Street hears three
gunshots coming from the right side of the road at a distance of approximately 4 meters from
his position, then the crime has been committed in his presence. Or when a blind and deaf
person perceives through his well-trained olfactory sense that a large amount of gunpowder is
present in the air, then he knows that a crime has been committed not far from where he is
standing. Clearly, there is personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the crime in
Paragraph A.
But what of section B? does it speak of the same personal knowledge? Simply put, personal
knowledge pertains to cognizance of a circumstance or fact gained directly through firsthand
experience or observation. An affidavit is a declaration based on personal knowledge, unless
expressly stated otherwise.
In his dissent in Sayo v. Chief of Police[1], Justice Tuazon remarks:
A police officer can seldom make arrest with personal knowledge of the offense and of
the identity of the person arrested sufficient in itself to convict. To require him to make an
arrest only when the evidence he himself can furnish proves beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
of the accused, would endanger the safety of society. It would cripple the forces of the law to
the point of enabling criminals, against whom there is only moral conviction or prima facie
proof of guilt, to escape. Yet persons arrested on necessarily innocent so that the prosecuting
attorney should release them. Further and closer investigation not infrequently confirm the
suspicion or information.

A wise observation indeed! For how many barangay tanods and police men are actually on
active duty, ready to respond to the cries of the helpless during the ungodly hours of the night?
Most of them are already cozy in their houses, over dosing on telenovelas, or indulging on a
grande bottle of Red Horse. Why, even at just 4 in the afternoon, one can HARDLY see any law
enforcement authorities surveying the most dangerous streets of Manila, which is practically a
haven for crimes. You judge, dear reader, from personal experience.
In answering our question, we shall resolve to cutting the provision piece by piece. Lets begin
with the elements of a lawful arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b). They are:
1.

That a crime has been committed

2.

That the arresting officer has probable cause to make the arrest

3.
That such probable cause is due to his personal knowledge of the facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed the crime
That a crime has been committed is a pre-condition because the law expressly makes it so. No
further questions asked. Thus, a police officer cannot make an arrest because the shady
character of a person has led him to believe that the latter might have committed a crime. The
crime must come first. The second element, probably cause, is an actual belief or reasonable
grounds for suspicion. It is also defined as facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably prudent and discreet man to believe that a crime has been committed and that
objects/person sought in connection to the crime are located in the place sought to be
searched[2]. Note that suspicion is not the same probable cause. Suspicion is based merely on
assumption probable cause is based on facts.
And finally, the personal knowledge of the facts. In the case of People v. Burgos, it was held
that:
The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground
applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.
Moreover, in previous cases such as People v. Tonog, Jr.[3] and and Posadas v. Ombudsman[4]
that personal knowledge of such facts may be gained by the officer during the course of his
investigation. Quoting Tonog Jr.:
It may be that the police officers were not armed with a warrant when they apprehended
Accused-appellant. The warrantless arrest, however, was justified under Section 5 (b), Rule 133
(sic) of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure providing that a peace officer may, without a
warrant, arrest a person when an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. In this case, Pat.

Leguarda, in effecting the arrest of Accused-appellant, had knowledge of facts gathered by him
personally in the course of his investigation indicating that Accused-appellant was one of the
perpetrators.
However, information simply relayed to the arresting officers is not personal knowledge. In
People v. Burgos, a certain Masamlok (I LOVE HIS NAME) informed police authorities that the
appellant was involved in subversive activities. Acting on the strength of such information and
without securing a judicial warrant, the police proceeded to appellants house to arrest him.
There, they also allegedly recovered an unlicensed firearm and subversive materials. There was
no personal knowledge since the information came from dear beloved Masamlok, a civilian. At
the time of Burgos arrest, he was not involved in subversive activities nor committing any
illegal acts.
And in People v. Encinada[5], where law enforcement authorities made an arrest based on an
intelligence report that they received, stating: appellant who was carrying marijuana would
arrive the next morning aboard M/V Sweet Pearl. The Court categorically stated that such
*r+aw intelligence information is not a sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest. And since, at
the time of his arrest, no act or fact demonstrating a felonious enterprise could be ascribed to
appellant, there was no valid justification for his arrest.
Thus, Hot Pursuit Arrests or those lawful arrests contemplate by Rule 113, Sec. 5(B), as Justice
Panganiban stated in his concurring opinion in People v. Florencia Doria[6]:
While the law enforcers may not actually witness the execution of acts constituting the
offense, they must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission. They
should know for a fact that a crime was committed. AND they must also perceive acts exhibited
by the person to be arrested, indicating that he perpetrated the crime. Again, mere intelligence
information that the suspect committed the crime will not suffice. The arresting officers
themselves must have personal knowledge of facts showing that the suspect performed the
criminal act. Personal knowledge means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based
on actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the crime.
Let me illustrate: Patrolman Fernando of the Sta Ana police precinct receives a complaint about
a stabbing incident in the Sta Ana Market. The complaint came from a concerned tindera who
witnessed the stabbing. This is the normal course of events in a criminal investigation the
police investigators receive information in the form of a complaint/witness testimony from a
third person. The first element of a hot pursuit: That a crime has been committed is hearsay
evidence.
However, the second and most important element namely, the facts constituting probable
cause that the person to be arrested has committed the crime complained of should have

been gained PERSONALLY. How is this gained? by conducting investigations, surveillance, or

perceiving acts of the accused which leads the arresting officer to believe that he should
rightfully be arrested.
________________________________________
[2] Santos v. Pryce Gases, Inc., G.R. No. 165122, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 474, 484, citing
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 903 (1996).
[3] http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_94533_1992.html
[4] http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/131492.htm
[5] http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/116720.htm
[6] http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_125299_1999.html

2THOUGHTS ON HOT PURSUIT ARRESTS RULE 113, SECTION 5(B) OF THE REVISED RULES ON
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1.

pgsaid:

February 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm

In your paragraph of 13:5:c, you make an assumption regarding the blind person (hearing a
gunshot does not make a crime) it is an assumption, not personal knowledge. Again, with the
deaf/blind person smelling gunpowder, this also would be an assumption that a crime has been
committed, it would not be personal knowledge that a crime has been committed.
Garvanguellesaid:
February 13, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Thank you for actually taking time to comment on my posts!
It might be in the way I worded my post, but you failed to take that scenario within e context of
rule 113; which is that a crime has in fact been committed. What I am discussing in that portion
is the concept of a crime being committed in the presence of the witness. That said, the blind
witness in the example smelled the gun powder when a crime has in fact been committed.
In people v. Samonte (16 Phil 516) the court held in his presence is to be construed as when
the officer sees the offense Being committed, although at a distance, or HEARS the disturbance
create thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof

Also in Padilla v. Court of Appeals (1997) a witness who heard the screeching of tires and turned
to see the victim lying on the ground was considered to have personal knowledge concerning th
commission of a crime.
Taga-Maynila, Babae, lumalaklak ng kape magdamag, mag-aaral ng batas, sosyolohista, pulitikal
na siyentipiko, mahilig sa pusa, madalas inaantok, palaging nag-iisip -- sumatotal: walang buhay.
LACUNA
165565; Latin. lacna ditch, pit, hole, gap, deficiency, akin to lacus .
Search: