Scribd
Upload
892 views2 pages

Pestilos V. People: Criminal Procedure Case Digest

The document is a case digest for Pestilos v. People, a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the criminal procedure and arrest of the petitioners. In the case, the petitioners were arrested without a warrant after being involved in an altercation and identified by the victim. The Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid because the crime had just been committed, the arresting officers had personal knowledge of the circumstances from responding to the scene, and there was probable cause to believe the petitioners committed the crime. The Court also found that using the term "invited" in the arrest affidavit still constituted an authoritative arrest, as the intent was for the petitioners to submit to police authority.

Uploaded by

Jamiah Obillo Hulipas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
892 views2 pages

Pestilos V. People: Criminal Procedure Case Digest

The document is a case digest for Pestilos v. People, a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the criminal procedure and arrest of the petitioners. In the case, the petitioners were arrested without a warrant after being involved in an altercation and identified by the victim. The Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid because the crime had just been committed, the arresting officers had personal knowledge of the circumstances from responding to the scene, and there was probable cause to believe the petitioners committed the crime. The Court also found that using the term "invited" in the arrest affidavit still constituted an authoritative arrest, as the intent was for the petitioners to submit to police authority.

Uploaded by

Jamiah Obillo Hulipas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CASE DIGEST

PESTILOS v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014

FACTS:

The antecedent facts of the case avers that at around 3: 15 in the morning, an altercation ensued
between the petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso. Atty. Generoso called the Central Police District,
Station 6 to report the incident. Acting on this report, Desk Officer SPOl Primitivo Monsalve
dispatched SP02 Dominador Javier (SP02 Javier). SP02 Javier, together with augmentation personnel
from the Airforce, A2C Alano Sayson and Airman Ruel Galvez, arrived at the scene of the crime less
than one hour after the alleged altercation and they saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. Atty. Generoso
then pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled him. This prompted the police to "invite" the
petitioners to go the Police Station for investigation. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor
found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon. Thereafter, in an
Information, the petitioners were indicted for attempted murder.

The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground that they
had not been lawfully arrested. They alleged that no valid warrantless arrest took place since the
police officers had no personal knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the crime. They also
claimed that they were just "invited" to the police station. Thus, the inquest proceeding was improper,
and a regular procedure for preliminary investigation should have been performed pursuant to Rule
112 of the Rules of Court. RTC denied petitioners’ motion. Likewise, CA dismissed the petition for
lack of merit. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant?

2. Whether or not the petitioners were lawfully arrested when they were merely
invited to the police precinct?

RULING:

1. Yes. For purposes of resolving the issue on the validity of the warrantless arrest of the present
petitioners, the question to be resolved is whether the requirements for a valid warrantless arrest under
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure were complied with, namely: 1)
has the crime just been committed when they were arrested? 2) did the arresting officer have personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the petitioners committed the crime? and 3) based on these
facts and circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the petitioners' arrest, would
a reasonably discreet and prudent person believe that the attempted murder of Atty. Generoso was
committed by the petitioners? The Court ruled in the affirmative.

The arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his
alleged mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after
the alleged mauling; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his
mauling and, notably, the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost in the same neighborhood;
more importantly, when the petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny
their participation in the incident, although they narrated a different version of what transpired. 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, the Court deem it reasonable to conclude that the police officers
had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners' warrantless arrests. These
circumstances were well within the 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.

Page 1 of 2
ABENOJA, RAVEN JOIE G. I JD-1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CASE DIGEST

Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited provision, does not
require actual presence at the crime scene, it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the
crime is patent (as in this case) and the police officer has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed the crime.
Hence, the warrantless arrests of the perpetrators were proper.

2. Yes, the term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest is construed to mean as an authoritative command.
In making arrest, it is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the
other and the intent of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is
necessary. In the case, notwithstanding the term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest, SP02 Javier could
not but have the intention of arresting the petitioners following Atty. Generoso's account.

Page 2 of 2
ABENOJA, RAVEN JOIE G. I JD-1

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy