Joey M.

Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
and Ronald Muoz v. People of the Philippines of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014
Brion, J.: The Court's appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just been
committed" and ''personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the
FACTS: person to be arrested committed it" depended on the particular circumstances
The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder. Petitioners filed an Urgent of the case. The element of ''personal knowledge of facts or circumstances",
Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that there no valid however, under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
warrantless took place. The RTC denied the motion and the CA affirmed the Procedure requires clarification. Circumstances may pertain to events or
denial. actions within the actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the
police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer
Records show that an altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty. has not seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless
Moreno Generoso. The latter called the Central Police District to report the arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene
incident and acting on this report, SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SPO2 Javier to of the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the
go to the scene of the crime and render assistance. SPO2, together with person sought to be arrested has committed the crime.
augmentation personnel arrived at the scene of the crime less than one hour
after the alleged altercation and saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or
circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime
Atty. Generoso then pointed the petitioners as those who mauled him which in order to comply with the element of immediacy. In other words, the clincher
prompted the police officers to invite the petitioners to go to the police station in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the
for investigation. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor found that the required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances
petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon who fortunately should be gathered.
survived the attack.
With the facts and circumstances of the case at bar that the police officers
Petitioners aver that they were not validly arrested without a warrant. gathered and which they have personally observed less than one hour from
the time that they have arrived at the scene of the crime, it is reasonable to
ISSUE: conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of the facts and
Are the petitioners validly arrested without warrant when the police officers did circumstances justifying the petitioners warrantless arrests.
not witness the crime and arrived only less than an hour after the alleged
altercation? Hence, the petitioners were validly arrested and the subsequent inquest
proceeding was likewise appropriate.
HELD:
YES, the petitioners were validly arrested without warrant. Section 5(b), Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:

When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it.

The elements under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure are: first, an offense has just been committed; and second, the
GERLIE M. Uy vs JUDGE ERWIN B. Javellana
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666
Facts: This administrative case arose from a verified complaint for
"gross ignorance of the law and
procedures, gross incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper
and unbecoming of a judge, grave
misconduct and others," filed by Public Attorneys Gerlie M. Uy (Uy)
and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug
(Bascug) of the (PAO), La Carlotta District, against Presiding Judge
Javellana of the MeTC, La Castellana,
Negros Occidental.
Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug alleged the following in their
complaint:

First, Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on

Summary Procedure. Public
Attorneys Uy and Bascug cited several occasions as examples:
O In Crim. Case No. 04-097, entitled People v. Cornelio, for
Malicious Mischief, Judge Javellana issued a
warrant of arrest after the filing of said case despite Section 16 of the
Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure;
oIn Crim. Case No. 04-075, entitled People v. Celeste, et al., for
Trespass to Dwelling, Judge Javellana did
not grant the motion to dismiss for non-compliance with the Lupon
requirement under Sections 18 and
19(a) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, insisting that said
motion was a prohibited pleading;
oAlso in People v. Celeste, et al., Judge Javellana refused to dismiss
outright the complaint even when
the same was patently without basis or merit, as the affidavits of
therein complainant and her witnesses
were all hearsay evidence; and
oIn Crim. Case No. 02-056, entitled People v. Lopez, et al., for
Malicious Mischief, Judge Javellana did not
apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and, instead,
conducted a preliminary examination and
preliminary investigation in accordance with the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, then set the case
for arraignment and pre-trial, despite confirming that therein
complainant and her witnesses had no
personal knowledge of the material facts alleged in their affidavits,
which should have been a ground for
dismissal of said case.
Third, Judge Javellana violated Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and
issued warrants of arrest without propounding searching questions to
the complainants and their
witnesses to determine the necessity of placing the accused under
immediate custody. As a result, Judge
Javellana issued warrants of arrest even when the accused had
already voluntarily surrendered or when
a warrantless arrest had been effected.
Fourth, Judge Javellana failed to observe the constitutional rights of
the accused as stated in Section
12(1), Article III of the Constitution. Judge Javellana set Crim. Case
No. 03-097, entitled People v.
Bautista, for preliminary investigation even when the accused had no
counsel, and proceeded with said
investigation without informing the accused of his rights to remain
silent and to have a counsel
Judge Javellana stressed that the charges against him were
baseless and malicious; and the acts being
complained of involved judicial discretion and, thus, judicial in nature
and not the proper subject of an
administrative complaint. Consequently, Judge Javellana sought the
dismissal of the instant complaint
against him. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its
report, found Judge Javellana liable for
gross ignorance of the law or procedure when he did not apply the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
in cases appropriately covered by said Rule.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
Held: Judge Javellana committed a blatant error in denying the
Motion to Dismiss filed by the accused in
People v. Celeste, et al. and in insisting that said Motion was a
prohibited pleading, even though the
case was never previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa as
required by Sections 18 and 19(a) of
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. A case which has not
been previously referred to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa shall be dismissed without prejudice. A motion to
dismiss on the ground of failure to
comply with the Lupon requirement is an exception to the pleadings
prohibited by the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure. Given the express provisions of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure, we find
irrelevant Judge Javellanas argument that referral to the Lupon is
not a jurisdictional requirement. The
following facts are undisputed: People v. Celeste, et al. were not
referred to the Lupon, and the accused
filed a Motion to Dismiss based on this ground. Judge Javellana
should have allowed and granted the
Motion to Dismiss (albeit without prejudice) filed by the accused in
People v. Celeste, et al.
(hindi ko sure) Judge Javellana did not provide any reason as to why
he needed to conduct a preliminary
investigation in People v. Lopez, et al. Judge Javellana cannot be
allowed to arbitrarily conduct
proceedings beyond those specifically laid down by the Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure, thereby
lengthening or delaying the resolution of the case, and defeating the
express purpose of said Rule.
Without any showing that the accused in People v. Cornelio and
People v. Lopez, et al. were
charged with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly
described in Article 328 of the Revised
Penal Code the appropriate penalty for the accused would be arresto
mayor in its medium and
maximum periods which under Article 329(a) of the Revised Penal
Code, would be imprisonment for two
(2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. Clearly, these two
cases should be governed by the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ and
EDWIN VALDEZ
G.R. No. 175602
Fatcs: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged the
two accused in the RTC with three
counts of murder for the killing of Ferdinand Sayson, Moises Sayson,
Jr., and Joselito Sayson. The
accused were tried for and convicted of three counts of murder by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
86, in Quezon City. They were penalized with reclusion perpetua for
each count, and ordered to pay to
the heirs actual damages civil indemnity, and moral damages. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
upheld the RTC with some modifications as to the civil indemnity.
The accused came to the Court to
seek acquittal. On May 9, 2007 Edwin Valdez filed a motion to
withdraw appeal, which the Court
granted, thereby deeming Edwins appeal closed and terminated.
Hence, the Court hereby resolves only
the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez. In his appeal, PO2 Valdez
contends among others that the State did
not establish the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Issue: Whether or not PO2 Valdez may be convicted of murder
considering that the attendance of
treachery was not sufficiently allege in the information.
Held: The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from
the caption or preamble of the
information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged
to have been violated, which are
mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the
complaint or information. Every element
of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and
circumstances are necessary to be
included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions
and essentials of the specified
crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the
information is to inform the accused
of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to
suitably prepare his defense. The
presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of
the facts that constitute the offense.
The averments of the information to the effect that the two accused
with intent to kill,
qualified with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength did xxx assault, attack
and employ personal violence upon the victims by then and there
shooting *them+ with a gun, hitting
*them+ on various parts of their bodies which *were+ the direct and
immediate cause of [their]
death*s+ did not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances
describing how treachery attended
each of the killings. It should not be difficult to see that merely
averring the killing of a person by
shooting him with a gun, without more, did not show how the
execution of the crime was directly and
specially ensured without risk to the accused from the defense that
the victim might make. Indeed, the
use of the gun as an instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for
there are other instruments that
could serve the same lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the term
treachery constitute a sufficient
averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion
of law, not an averment of a fact.
In short, the particular acts and circumstances constituting treachery
as an attendant circumstance in
murder were missing from the information. Wherefore the decision of
the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED
by finding PO2 Eduardo Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
three counts of HOMICIDE.