Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: On February 20, 2005, there was an altercation ensued between the
petitioners and the defendant, Atty. Generoso. The defendant then called the
Central Police District to report the incident. The police then acted on the report
and dispatched officers to go to the scene of the crime and to provide assistance.
Upon arriving at the scene of the crime, they saw the defendant badly beaten.
The defendant pointed the petitioners as those who mauled him which prompted
the police officers to “invite” the petitioners to go to the police station for
investigation. At the inquest proceeding, it was found out that the petitioners
stabbed the defendant with a bladed weapon.
On February 22, 2005, the petitioners were then indicted for attempted murder.
On March 07, 2005, the petitioners filed for an Urgent Motion for Regular
Preliminary Investigation on the ground that they had not been lawfully arrested
since there was no valid warrantless arrest that took place because the police
officers did not personally know that they were the perpetrators of the crime.
The Regional Trial Court denied the petitioners’ Urgent Motion for Regular
Preliminary Investigation and likewise denied their motion for reconsideration.
The petitioners then challenged the decision of the RTC before the Court of
Appeals but the CA issued its decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
The CA recognized that the arrest was pursuant to a valid warrantless arrest.
ISSUES:
1. WON the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant.
2. WON the petitioners were lawfully arrested when they were merely invited
to the police precinct.
3. WON the order denying the motion for preliminary investigations is void for
failure to state the facts and the law upon which it was based.
RULINGS:
1. With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and
which they have personally observed less than one hour from the time that
they have arrived at the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the
petitioners, it is deemed reasonable to conclude that the police officers have
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners’
warrantless arrests. 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 circumstances qualify as the police officers’ personal observation, which are
within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless
arrests.