Go vs. CA

ROLITO GO vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992

FELICIANO, J.:

To constitute warrantless arrest, the police officer must have personal knowledge on the offense committed.

Petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police on the incident that he was the gunman of Maguan as he was positively identified by the witnesses who works near where the incident happens. Petitioner filed with the Prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the warrantless arrest was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed.

Petitioner argues that he was not lawfully arrested without warrant because he went to the police station six (6) days after the shooting which he had allegedly perpetrated. Thus, petitioner argues, the crime had not been "just committed" at the time that he was arrested. Moreover, none of the police officers who arrested him had been an eyewitness to the shooting of Maguan and accordingly none had the "personal knowledge" required for the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest was lawful?

HELD:  No. The warrantees "arrest" or detention of petitioner in the instant case falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides as follows:

Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceed against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.

Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed" within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's wife's name. That information did not, however, constitute "personal knowledge."

Posadas vs. CA

ROMEO POSADAS vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 89139 August 2, 1990

 A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.

Two police officers were patrolling the area where the petitioner was spotted carrying a buri bag.  The officers approached petitioner and identified themselves as member of Integrated National Police (INP). Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun  a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun.  They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in RTC.

Petitioner argues there being no lawful arrest or search and seizure, the items which were confiscated from the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid.

RULING: The arrest is valid.

it is clear that an arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or private person, among others, when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.

At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did now know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant. However, there are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and search" without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld by the SC.  In Valmonte vs. de Villa, not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.

The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.