Facts: Rene Nuestro was indicted for the murder of Ludovico Dabi. He tried to plead for the lesser offense of homicide with the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and voluntary surrender. Two different accounts were presented before the Court. According to the prosecution (relying on the testimony of Lani Dabi, daughter of the accused), Ludovico and his daughter were standing in front of their gate when Nuestro suddenly came upon Ludovico, stabbing him several times with a knife.Elias Franco intervened but upon approaching, Nuestro dropped the knife and said, I hold myself responsible and Ill go to jail for this. According to the defense, Nuestro merely acted in self-defense. Ludovico allegedly called the accused out several times, challenging him to a fight. When Nuestro stepped out of his home (they were neighbors) Ludovico allegedly attacked him with the knife which Nuestro successfully wrestled from Ludovico. Nuestro had to stab him because he started to stand as if to rush towards Nuestro. Nuestro then threw away the knife and took a jeep to the police station, Elias Franco merely followed him to the police station. Held: The prosecutions version of the events were believed by the Court. There were no countervailing reasons to overturn the decision of the trial court. The defense failed entirely to prove the circumstances allowing for self-defense were present and the witness presented and the testimony of the accused were not believable. The Court liekwise did not grant the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The accused was clearly placed under citizens arrest by Elias Franco and was turned over to the officers of the police station. People v. Renante Mendez and Baby Cabagtong (November 21, 2002) Facts: An appeal from the decision of the RTC finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime of rape with homicide, the victim was Candy Dolim. The Court noted that the records of the case were replete with procedural and evidentiary lapses. Candy was sent to run errands by her father, she was found dead four days later in an open field with her underpants and shorts around her ankles and her shirt rolled up. Ronnie Cabagtong was brought in for questioning but upon the intervention of his mother, Aurea, he was released. Both mother and son pointed to accused- appellants as the perpetrators. According to Aurea, the herein accused went to her house soaking wet. She was told by Ronnie to allow them to come in. She allegedly saw them washing their clothes to remove bloodstains. When she woke up the next day, they were gone. Ronnie claimed that on the night of the crime, he saw the accused follow Candy out from Kagawad Tesoros house. He was walking home when he saw Mendez on top of Candy while Baby was holding her hands above her head. It was raining and dark but according to Ronnie, he was able to recognize them because of a lantern which illuminated the place. When the accused went to his home they threatened him not to tell anyone about what had happened. Ronnie could not remember what the accused were wearing at the time, nor did he hear cries from the victim. He did not stay in the area long because it was drizzling. According to Ronnie, after the incident he ate dinner then went to bed. When Ronnie was apprehended, he claimed he did not immediately give information about what he knew to the investigating officer (SPO2 Cernia) because Mendez, who had been apprehended as well, had a cousin who was a policeman. SPO2 Cernio did not put his statement in writing. According to SPO2 Cernio, Ronnie was released upon his claim of innocence but Mendez remained in custody for investigation and the Chief Police ordered for the arrest of Baby Cabagtong. SPO2 Cernio investigated Baby but said investigation was not put into writing. Mejica (person who brought Baby Cabagtong to the station): He collared Baby Cabagtong and said he was being arrested as one of the suspects in the rape-slay case. Mejica said he was present when the police and the mayor investigated accused-appellant Baby. According to Mejica, he based his arrest of Baby from the statement of Aurea. The defense presented the theory that the crim was committed by Randy Gomba. As evidence they presented Josefina Bernas. On the night of the crime, she heard a woman crying and upon investigation she saw Randy Gomba holding the victim in his arms, he was raping her. Randy warned Josefina that he would kill her if she told anyone. Frightened, she ran to her husband and upon relating the story to him they hurriedly left. When she arrived home, she wrote the date and time of the incident. Randy went to their home and again threatened them with harm. The spouses then stayed at the home of her husbands family. She asked for assistance from the barangay captain and even stayed in the home of his son until Randy left for Manila. Isabelo Lucero, the barangay captain, confirmed what Josefina stated. He said he wrote the Chief of Police a letter recommending the arrest of Gomba but said letter was not acted upon. Baby Cabagtong: He was with his family more than a kilometer away from the scene of the crime. Ronnie was released by SPO2 Cernio on the condition that he testify against Baby and Renante. Renante: He was on Gamay helping his father make copra December of 1996. On the night of the crime he did not leave his house because he was sick. The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of Ronnie Cabagtong and his mother, credible and rendered judgment for the prosecution. Held: The prosecution anchored its case on the testimonies of Aurea and Ronnie Cabagtong (mother and son). Said testimonies are suspect. There were no houses near the scene of the crime and Ronnie alleged that he was able to recognize the accused because of a parol hanging nearby. If there were no houses or buildings nearby, where was said parol hung and why was it hung in an abandoned area? The behavior of Ronnie after the incident belies any claim that he had indeed witnessed a crime, especially one so gruesome as a rape-slay. He even allowed the accused to enter his home and sleep therein. Ronnie was only released upon the statement of his mother naming the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. The police officer took Ronnies declaration of innocence at face value, failing to even reduce it into writing. The only evidence against the accused is circumstantial. Such evidence, to pass muster, must meet the following criteria: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Such circumstances must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to the fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty. The combination of evidence must leave no room for doubt as to the guilt of the accused. It puzzled the court why no investigation was done upon the statements of Josefina Bernas which was even endorsed by the barangay captain (who was also godfather to the victim). The prosecution cannot profit from the weakness of accused-appellants' alibi. It must rely on the strength of its own evidence and establish the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The record shows that accused-appellants were arrested without any warrants from the courts. Contrary to his claim, SPO2 Cernio did not have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime so as to justify the warrantless arrest of Renante. Accused-appellant Baby, on the other hand, was arrested by Mejica, a member of the Citizens' Crime Watch, on the basis of the citizens' arrest law. Mejica was neither a police officer nor a witness to the incident. He was not a member of the investigating team. He did not have any personal knowledge of the incident. He merely based his arrest on the information supplied by Aurea Cabagtong to the police. This does not constitute personal knowledge to warrant a citizens' arrest. Finally, there is nothing in the records to show that the accused were assisted by counsel throughout the entire course of the investigation. Likewise, they were not apprised of their rights under the constitution. These procedural lapses clearly indicate that the police had shut its mind off to the possibility that other parties might have committed the crime. ACQUITTED. ROGER POSADAS, ROSARIO TORRES-YU, and MARICHU LAMBINO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, and ORLANDO V. DIZON, respondents. Facts: Dennis Venturina, a member of the Sigma Rho fraternity, died in a rumble between his fraternity and members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity. Then Chancellor Posadas, sought the assistance of the NBI. Four days after the incident, acting on information given by two eyewitnesses, NBI operatives tried to arrest Francis Taparan and Raymundo Narag who were then at the UP Police Station attending a peace talk between Scintilla Juris and Sigma Rho. Herein petitioners, all UP officials, as well as counsel for the suspects, Att. Villamorm objected to the warrantless arrest. They told the operatives that the two would be brought to the NBI office the next day. For failure to comply, they were charged with a violation of PD 1829, Obstruction in the Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses. Held: Petitioners had a right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and Narag at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. Indeed, they could not have interfered with the prosecution of the guilty parties because in fact petitioner Posadas had asked the NBI for assistance in investigating the death of Venturina. On the other hand, just because petitioners had asked for assistance from the NBI did not authorize respondent Dizon and his men to disregard constitutional requirements. Whether or not petitioner Posadas surrendered the student suspects to the NBI agents the following day is immaterial. In the first place, they were not sureties or bondsmen who could be held to their undertaking. In the second place, the fact remains that the NBI agents could not have validly arrested Taparan and Narag at the U.P. Police Station as they did not have a warrant at that time. Objection to an illegal warrantless arrest cannot be a violation of Section 1 (c) of PD 1829. The NBI operatives grounded their warrantless arrest on Rule 113 Sec. 5(b). According to respondents, the NBI agents had personal knowledge of facts gathered by them in the course of their investigation indicating that the students sought to be arrested were the perpetrators of the crime. The Court disagreed. First of all, in the case cited by respondents (People v. Tonog Jr.) the accused voluntarily went with the police. Second, the arresting officer saw blood stains on the suspects pants. Finally, the arrest was made on the same day the crime was committed. The NBI agents in the case at bar tried to arrest Narag and Taparan four days after the commission of the crime. They had no personal knowledge of any fact which might indicate that the two students were probably guilty of the crime. What they had were the supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, which is insufficient to justify the arrest without a warrant by the NBI. At the time Dennis Venturina was killed, these agents were nowhere near the scene of the crime. When respondent Dizon and his men attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag, the latter were not committing a crime nor were they doing anything that would create the suspicion that they were doing anything illegal. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without a warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.