People v. Del Rosario (1999) c.

c. After taking hold of the bag one of the two men armed with a gun
Petition: Automatic Review started chasing a man who was trying to help the woman, while the
Accused-Appellant: Joselito Del Rosario other snatcher kicked the woman sending her to the ground.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines d. The armed man returned and while the woman was still on the
ground he shot her on the head.
Ponencia: Bellosillo, J.
e. The bag taken by the man was brought to the tricycle of Del Rosario
where someone inside received the bag.
DOCTRINE: f. The armed man sat behind the driver while his companion entered
For there to be valid warrantless arrest under Sec 5(b), there has to be a large the sidecar.
measure of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the g. Alonzo gave chase and was able to get the plate number of the
time of the arrest and the person making the arrest must have personal tricycle. He also recognized the driver.
knowledge of certain facts indicating that the person to be taken into custody h. He then went to the police
has committed the crime. 4. Del Rosario Version:
a. At around 5:30 in the afternoon he was hired for P120.00 by a certain
PROVISION: Boy Santos to drive to the cockpit at the Blas Edward Coliseum.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private b. Boy Santos however directed him to proceed to the market place to
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: fetch Jun Marquez and Dodong Bisaya.
c. Marquez and Bisaya boarded in front of the parking lot of Merced
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is Drugstore at the public market.
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; d. Del Rosario was told to proceed and stop at the corner of Burgos and
b) When an offense has in fact been committed and he has personal General Luna Sts. where Bisaya alighted on the pretext of buying a
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has cigarette.
committed it; and, e. Bisaya then accosted the victim Virginia Bernas and grappled with
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from her for the possession of her bag.
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or f. Jun Marquez alighted from the tricycle to help Dodong Bisaya.
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while g. Del Rosario tried to leave and seek help but Boy Santos who stayed
inside the tricycle prevented him from leaving and threatened in fact
being transferred from one confinement to another.
to shoot him.
h. Dodong Bisaya succeeded in taking the victims bag, but before
FACTS: boarding the tricycle Jun Marquez shot the victim on the head while
1. Del Rosario, Ernesto Marquez alias Jun, Virgilio Santos alias Boy she was lying prone on the ground.
Santos and John Doe alias Dodong were charged with special i. Dodong Bisaya boarded the sidecar of the tricycle while Jun Marquez
complex crime of robbery with homicide. rode behind del Rosario and ordered him to start the engine and
a. They robbed Virginia Bernas, 66-year old businesswoman of drive towards Dicarma.
P200K in cash and jewelry and and on the occasion, shot and j. Upon arriving at Dicarma, the 3 men alighted and warned del Rosario
killed her. not to inform the police authorities about the incident otherwise he
2. Accused Del Rosario pleaded not guilty and was the only one tried. and his family would be harmed.
k. Del Rosario then went home but because of the threat, however, he
a. Santos and John Doe remained at large did not report the matter to the owner of the tricycle nor to the
b. Marquez was killed in a police encounter. barangay captain and the police.
3. Facts of the incident (eyewitness account of Paul Vincent Alonzo, 5. RTC: found Del Rosario guilty and sentenced him to death.
tricycle driver) 6. Hence this automatic review.
a. On May 13, 1996, between 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening, Alonzo 7. Del Rosario argues:
stopped his tricycle by the side of Nitas Drugstore, General Luna St.,
a. His co-accused employed threat and irresistible force on him
Cabanatuan City, when three women flagged him.
i. Parked at a distance of about one and a-half (1) meters in b. He was not part of the conspiracy among his co-accused
front of him was a tricycle driven by accused Joselito del c. There were violations against his constitutional rights as an
Rosario. accused
b. Alonzo saw 2 men and a woman grappling for possession of a bag. d. There was no lawful warrantless arrest within the
meaning of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: W/N the arrest of Del Rosario was valid NO. waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment
without any objection, as in this case.
RULING + RATIO: 4. Other Issues:
1. Facts of Arrest: a. On Exemption: Claim for exemption from criminal liability as he
a. Del Rosario was arrested by SPO4 De Leon during the acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force must be
police raid at the place of "Jun" Marquez at Brgy. Dicarma sustained. He was then unarmed and unable to protect himself when
on 14 May 1996 (Day after the commission of the crime) he was prevented at gunpoint by his co-accused from leaving the
crime scene during the perpetration of the robbery and killing, and
2. Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused be caught in was only forced to help them escape after the commission of the
flagrante delicto or caught immediately after the consummation of the crime.
act. b. On Conspiracy: No complicity can be deduced where there is
a. The arrest of del Rosario is obviously outside the purview of absolutely no showing that the accused directly participated in the
the aforequoted rule since he was arrested on the day overt act of robbing and shooting although he was with the persons
following the commission of the robbery with homicide. who robbed and killed the victim.
3. Sec. 5, par. (b), Rule 113, necessitates two (2) stringent requirements c. On violation of constitutional rights: Del Rosario was deprived of
before a warrantless arrest can be effected: his rights during custodial investigation.
a. an offense has just been committed; i. From the time he was "invited" for questioning at the house
of the barangay captain, he was already under effective
b. the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts custodial investigation, but he was not apprised nor
indicating that the person to be arrested had committed it. made aware thereof by the investigating officers.
c. There has to be: ii. The police already knew the name of the tricycle driver and
i. large measure of immediacy between the time the the latter was already a suspect in the robbing and
offense was committed and the time of the arrest, senseless slaying of Virginia Bernas. Prosecution failed to
and if there was an appreciable lapse of time establish that del Rosario had waived his right to remain
between the arrest and the commission of the silent, his verbal admissions on his participation in the
crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. crime even before his actual arrest were inadmissible
ii. Aside from the sense of immediacy, it is also against him, as the same transgressed the safeguards
provided by law and the Bill of Rights.
mandatory that the person making the arrest must
have personal knowledge of certain facts
DISPOSITION: Del Rosario is ACQUITTED.
indicating that the person to be taken into
custody has committed the crime.
d. The arrest of del Rosario does not comply with these
requirements since, the arrest came a day after the
consummation of the crime and not immediately thereafter.
i. The crime had not been "just committed" at the
time the accused was arrested.
ii. The arresting officers had no personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
committed the offense since they were not present
and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime,
and they became aware of his identity as the
driver of the getaway tricycle only during the
custodial investigation.
e. However, the conspicuous illegality of del Rosario's arrest
cannot affect the jurisdiction of the court a quo because even
in instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not
a jurisdictional defect and any objection thereto is