Scribd
Upload
131 views2 pages

PP VS Manago

The document discusses the requirements for a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(b) of the Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure. It explains that for a warrantless arrest to be valid, the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the crime coupled with immediacy. Immediacy means the arrest occurs immediately after the crime. This ensures the officer does not have time to conduct an investigation and bases the arrest only on raw, uncontaminated facts perceived at the crime scene. The element of immediacy, along with the requirement of probable cause, acts as an important safeguard against improper warrantless arrests.

Uploaded by

Lays Rds
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
131 views2 pages

PP VS Manago

The document discusses the requirements for a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(b) of the Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure. It explains that for a warrantless arrest to be valid, the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the crime coupled with immediacy. Immediacy means the arrest occurs immediately after the crime. This ensures the officer does not have time to conduct an investigation and bases the arrest only on raw, uncontaminated facts perceived at the crime scene. The element of immediacy, along with the requirement of probable cause, acts as an important safeguard against improper warrantless arrests.

Uploaded by

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERRJAN MANAGO Y
ACUT, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016

In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), it is essential that the element of personal
knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be
nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered
inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution. In Pestilos v.
Generoso ( G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014, 739 SCRA 337) the Court explained the
requirement of immediacy as follows:

Based on these discussions, it appears that the Court's appreciation of the elements that "the
offense has just been committed" and "personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the
person to be arrested; committed it" depended on the particular circumstances of the case.

However, we note that the element of "personal knowledge of facts or circumstance" under
Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires clarification.The
phrase covers facts or, in the alternative, circumstances. According to the Black's Law
Dictionary, "circumstances are attendant or accompanying facts, events or conditions."
Circumstances may pertain to events or 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
has not seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his
personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine the
existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime.
However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should
be made immediately after the commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of
immediacy.

In other words, the clincher in the element of "personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is
the required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered.
This required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the
facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. This guarantees that the
police officers would have no time to base their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances
obtained after an exhaustive investigation.

The reason for the element of the immediacy is this - as the time gap from the commission of the
crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated
and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the
element of immediacy imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the police officer's determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited to
raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered as they were within a very limited period
of time. The same provision adds another safeguard with the requirement of probable cause as
the standard for evaluating these facts of circumstances before the police officer could effect a
valid warrantless arrest

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