People vs Alunday caught in the act of committing a crime.

This
rule, which warrants the arrest of a person
Facts: Alunday was charged in 2 information for without warrant, requires that the person
violation of the Dangerous drugs acts and for arrested has just committed a crime, or is
illegal possession of firearm (M16 rifle). As per committing it, or is
prosecution’s version, sometime in May 2000 about to commit an offense, in the presence or
the intelligence section of the Police Provincial within view of the arresting officer.
Office of Mountain Province that there was a
marijuana plantation within the vicinity of Mt. In this case, the police saw Alunday in the
Churyon, Sadanga, Mountain province. Acting process of cutting and harvesting the marijuana
on the confidential information, Operation which was an act prohibited under RA 6425.
Banana was created. Thus, on Aug 2, 2000 a Also, the contention of Alunday that a warrant
group of policemen went up to Mt. Churyon to for his arrest could have been obtained because
investigate on the marijuana plantation. During the police had information of the marijuana
the operation, Saipen, one of the policemen, plantation as early as May 2000 is invalid. This
was dispatched to scout area ahead of the is because the police had to verify the
others. At this point, his group saw Alunday information several times, and it was only on
cutting and gathering marijuana plants. The August 2, 2000 that the information was finally
policemen then brought him to a hut where confirmed.
they saw an old woman, an M16 rifle and some
dried marijuana leaves. The other members of Alunday is estopped from assailing the illegality
the raiding team uprooted and thereafter of his arrest. An accused must question the
burned the marijuana plants, while the team validity of his arrest before arraignment. And
from the Provincial Headquarters got some since the legality of an arrest affects only the
samples of the marijuana plants and brought jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
the same to their headquarters. All the samples accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused
were confirmed to be marijuana. may be deemed cured when he voluntarily
submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. The
On the other hand, Alunday claims a different illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient
version. He contends that he was just there to cause for setting aside a valid judgment
pick up lumber. The TC convicted Alunday and rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a
sentence him to reclusion perpetua. The case trial free from error; such arrest does not
was then appealed to the SC with Alunday negate the validity of the conviction of the
claiming that the evidence obtained during the accused. In this case, Alunday went into
operation should be inadmissible as it was the arraignment and entered a plea of guilty. He
result of an unlawful arrest. actively participated in the trial and only raised
the issue of his arrest during appeal. Thus, he is
Issue: WON there was an unlawful arrest? deemed to have waived the alleged defect by
submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the
Held: No, the arrest was lawful. Under Sec 5 court.
Rule 113 of the rules of court an arrest without
warrant is lawful when the accused is in Conclusion: The arrest was lawful
flagrante delicto. This means that he was
People vs Del Rosario participating in the crime by his co-accused. Sec 5 par. B of Rule 113, 2 things must occur
before a warrantless arrest can be done: (1) the
Facts: Joselito del Rosario, Ernesto Marquez, Issue: WON there was no lawful warrantless offense has just been committed (2) the person
Virgilio Santos and John Doe were charged arrest? Yes making the arrest has personal knowledge of
with the special complex crime of Robbery with facts indicating that a crime has been
Homicide for having robbed Virginia Bernas of Held: A person who acts under the compulsion committed. Hence, there must be a large
P200,000.00 in cash and jewelry and on the of an irresistible force, like one who acts under measure of immediacy between the time the
occasion thereof shot and killed her. Only Del the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or offense was committed and the time of the
Rosario was tried as the other 2 were at large. greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability arrest, and if there was an appreciable lapse of
because he does not act with freedom. The time between the arrest and the commission of
Based on the prosecution’s version, tricycle force contemplated must be so formidable as to the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.
driver Alonzo saw 2 men from 1-1/2 meters reduce the actor to a mere instrument. The In this case, this was not complied with as he
grappling the bag of a woman. After taking hold duress, force, fear or intimidation must be was arrested a day after the consummation of
of the bag one of the two men armed with a present, imminent and impending, and of such the crime and not immediately after.
gun started chasing a man who was trying to nature as to induce a well-grounded
help the woman, while the other snatcher apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if Conclusion: The arrest was unlawful.
kicked the act be done. In this case, Del Rosario was
the woman sending her to the ground. Soon threatened with a gun and because of this he
after, the armed man returned and while the was unable to flee or help a stranger. Since the
woman was still on the ground he shot her on witness Alonzo was 1-1/2 meters from the
the head. The bag taken by the man was tricycle of del Rosario, it was possible that he
brought to the tricycle of del Rosario where was unable to see what was actually happening
someone inside received the bag. The armed in the tricycle.
man then sat behind the driver while his
companion entered the sidecar. When the There is no conspiracy in this case, mere
tricycle sped away Alonzo gave chase and was knowledge or approval of the act does not
able to get the plate number of the tricycle. He amount to conspiracy. Conspiracy must be
also recognized the established by positive and conclusive evidence.
driver, after which he went to the nearest police In this case, there was no evidence that del
headquarters and reported the incident. Rosario agreed to commit the crime.

On the other hand, del Rosario claims that he The constitutional rights of Del Rosario was
was merely coerced into helping his co-accused violated when he was invited for interview but
and that he had no idea that they will commit a later on detained and handcuffed on the
crime when they rode his tricycle. He also grounds that the police had already gathered
claims that he they threatened to kill his family enough evidence against him. The moment that
in case he will report the crime to the police. he was “invited” he was already under a
custodial investigation. However, during that
The court convicted Del Rosario and sentence time he was not informed of his rights. Thus,
him to death. In the automatic review, he his admissions on his participation in the crime
claims that he was no lawful warrantless arrest before his arrest cannot be used against him.
and that the court should give credence to his
claim that he was merely coerced into There was no lawful warrantless arrest. Under
People vs Jayson His claim that he is covered by the warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence,
memorandum and mission order by Major the person to be arrested has committed, is
Facts: An information was filed against Arquillano is without merit as he is not one of actually committing, or is attempting to commit
Wenceslao Jayson for murdering Nelson Jordan the enumerated people allowed to issue such an offense. This is known an arrest in flagrante
and illegal possession of firearms. The evidence mission orders. Even assuming that the delicto.
shows that while Jayson was working as a issuance to accused-appellant of the mission
bouncer in an ihaw-ihaw in Davao, he shot order was valid, it is clear that, in carrying the For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in
Nelson Jordan. He was arrested after the firearm inside flagrante delicto to be valid, 2 requisites must
witnesses pointed to him as the gunman and a the nightclub where he was working as a concur: (1) the person to be arrested must
gun was confiscated from him. “bouncer,” Jayson violated the restrictions in execute an overt act indicating that he has just
the mission order. These restrictions prohibited committed, is actually committing, or is
Jayson claims that he should not be charged him from carrying firearms in places where attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such
with illegal possession of firearm as his people converge unless on official mission. overt act is done in the presence or within the
possession was covered by a mission order and view of the arresting officer.
memorandum allowing him to carry it. Conclusion: the arrest was lawful.
In this case, there was no overt act as Edano
Issue: WON there was a lawful warrantless People vs Edano and the informant were merely talking to each
arrest? Yes other. There was no exchange of money and
Facts: Sochi and Edano were apprehended drugs when the police approached the car.
Held: though the lawful warrantless arrest was during an entrapment operation wherein a Edano’s act of running away should not be
not challenged by Jayson, the court still female informant approached them and after taken against him. Flight per se is not
discussed the circumstances of his arrest talking to them, called the police who were with synonymous with guilt and must not always be
because the seizure of the firearm and his her. The moment that Sochi and Edano saw the attributed to one’s consciousness of guilt. It is
arrest were both made without a warrant. police, Edano went out of the vehicle and ran. not a reliable indicator of guilt without other
The police chased Edano and was able to grab circumstances, for even in high crime areas
Under Rule 113 sec 5 (b), a warrantless arrest him. While one of the police seized the gun there are many innocent reasons
is valid when an offense has just been tucked to his waist and the transparent bags of for flight, including fear of retribution for
committed and the peace officer had personal shabu that he was holding, the other members speaking to officers, unwillingness to appear as
knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested Sochi. The bags tested positive for witnesses, and fear of being wrongfully
arrested has committed it. In this case, there shabu . Thus, a case was filed against Sochi apprehended as a guilty party. Thus, appellant’s
was a shooting and the police were immediately and Edano for violation of the dangerous drugs attempt to run away from
called to the crime scene and found the victim. act. PO3 de Leon is susceptible of various
Jayson was pointed to them by witnesses only explanations; it could easily have meant guilt
moments after the shooting while he was On the other hand, Edano claims that his arrest just as it could likewise signify innocence. Thus,
already in the process of fleeing. The arresting was illegal as he was not committing a crime since the arrest was unlawful, the evidence that
officers thus acted on the basis of personal when he was apprehended. the search and seizure yielded are inadmissible
knowledge of the death of the victim and of as evidence.
facts indicating that Jayson was the assailant. Issue: WoN the arrest of Edano was unlawful?
Since, the warrantless arrest of Jayson was yes Pestilos vs Generoso
valid, the search conducted on him that yielded
the gun was also valid. Held: The arrest was unlawful and Edano must Facts: Atty. Generoso called the police and
be acquitted. Under Sec 5a of rule 113, peace requested for their assistance during an
Jayson is liable for illegal possession of firearm. officer or a private person may, without a altercation between him and petitioners. Acting
on said complain, the officers then proceeded to crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to gathering of facts or circumstances should be
the scene of the crime and to render assistance. actual facts or made immediately after the commission of the
The police officers arrived an hour after and raw evidence, i.e., supported by circumstances crime in order to comply with the element of
they saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. sufficiently strong in themselves to create the immediacy. This is because as the time gap
probable cause of guilt of the person to be between the commission of the crime to the
Atty. Generoso then pointed to the petitioners arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must arrest widens, the pieces of information
as those who mauled him. This prompted the be founded on probable cause, coupled with gathered are prone to become contaminated
police officers to “invite” the petitioners to go to good faith on the part of the peace officers and subjected to external factors,
Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation. An making the arrest. The basis of the arrest must interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand,
inquest proceeding was then conducted and an be a reasonable ground of suspicion that is with the element of immediacy imposed under
information for attempted murder. The supported by circumstances sufficiently strong Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
petitioners were convicted and thus filed an in themselves to warrant a cautious man to Criminal Procedure, the police officer’s
appeal. believe that the person is guilty of the offense determination of probable cause would
with which he is charged. necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated
The petitioners claim that their arrest was facts or circumstances.
unlawful. They alleged that no valid warrantless Under the present rules and jurisprudence, the
arrest took place since the police officers had arresting officer should base his determination In this case, the petitioners were lawfully
no personal knowledge that they were the of probable cause on his personal knowledge of arrested. This supported by the ff. facts: the
perpetrators of the crime. They also claimed facts and circumstances that the person arresting officers went to the scene of the crime
that they were just “invited” to the police sought to be arrested has committed the crime; upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his
station. Thus, the inquest proceeding was the public prosecutor and the judge must base alleged mauling;the police officers responded to
improper, and a regular procedure for their determination on the evidence submitted the scene of the crime less than 1 hour after
preliminary by the parties. In other words, the arresting the alleged mauling; the alleged crime
investigation should have been performed officer operates on the basis of more limited transpired in a community where Atty.
pursuant to Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. facts, evidence or available information that he Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty.
must personally gather within a limited time Generoso positively identified the petitioners as
Issue: WON there was an unlawful arrest? No frame. Hence, the determination of the those responsible
probable cause of an officer has its limitations for his mauling and Atty. Gene-roso86 lived
Held: A warrantless arrest under Section 5(b) due to urgency of the situation. almost in the same neighborhood; more
has been described as a “hot pursuit” arrest. importantly, when the petitioners were
For this to be applicable there must be: First, The requirement of personal knowledge of facts confronted by the arresting officers, they did
an offense has just been committed; and and circumstances of the officer pertains to not deny their participation in the incident with
second, the arresting officer has probable events or actions within the actual perception, Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a
cause to believe based on personal knowledge personal evaluation or observation of the police different version of what transpired.
of facts or circumstances that the person to be officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even
arrested has committed it. The probable cause though the police has not seen someone With these facts and circumstances that the
of the arresting officer is different from the actually fleeing, he could still make a police officers gathered and which they have
probable cause used in a preliminary warrantless arrest if, based on his personal personally observed less than one hour from
investigation or in the issuance of a search evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the time that they have arrived at the scene of
warrant. The arresting officer’s determination of the crime, he could determine the existence of the crime until the time of the arrest of the
probable cause is based on his personal probable cause that the person sought to be petitioners, we deem it reasonable to conclude
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the arrested has committed the crime. However, that the police officers had personal knowledge
person sought to be arrested has committed the the determination of probable cause and the of facts or circumstances justifying the
petitioners’ warrantless arrests. These
circumstances were well within then police
officers’ observation, perception and evaluation
at the time of the arrest. These circumstances
qualify as the police officers’ personal
observation, which are within their personal
knowledge, prompting them to make the
warrantless arrests.

The contention of the petitioners that they were

Conclusion: The arrest was lawful.