4/27/2017 HotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section5(b)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureIntentionalLACUNAE

IntentionalLACUNAE

HotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section5(b)ofthe
RevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure

PostedonNovember26,2012December1,2012byIntentionalLacunae
Picturethisscenario:Onedark,gloomyOctoberevening,thesilenceofyoursleepybarangaywas
brokenbyfourgunshotsandascream.Arousedbythenoise,SPO1Esengrushestothehousewherethe
noisescamefrom.ThedistinctsmellofgunpowderandbloodpermeatetherusticOctoberair.When
SPO1Esengarrivesatthesceneofthecrime,barangaytanodshavealreadygatheredonthehouses
patio.Theyinformhimthatthreemembersoftheakyatbahayganghaverobbedandkilledthe
unfortunateownersofthehouse.Suddenly,aloudcrashisheard,thebackdoorofthehouseies
throughtheairandfourdarkguresdashthroughthehedgesbehindthehouse.SPO1Esengandthe
twoofthetanodsrunafterthefelons.

Thechaseleadsthemtoapopulatedstreetbusywithnightgoers.Theylosesightofthethreehooded
gureswhentheymakeablindturninaneskinita.Andarisingfromthedarknessoftheunlitalley,the
lawenforcersbeholdthreemen,walkingcalmlyalongthesideofthestreet,wearinghoodedjackets
similartotheoneswornbytheakyatbahaymembers,withtheirhandstuckedinsidetheirbaggypants
pocketsasiftheywerehidingsomething.Theywereunabletoseethefacesofthecoldheartedgang
members,andtheonlydistinctifyoucanevencallitdistinctcharacteristicthattheyrememberabout
thesuspectswasthattheywerewearingjackets.CanSPO1Esengandthebarangaytanodslawfullyarrest
thethreeshadycharacters?

Distraughtinmydesk,mypoorundergraduateselfkeptwonderingwhatRule113,Section5(b)meant
bypersonalknowledge.Itwaswhatwelawstudentscalledashotgunquestionowingtothequick
reloadingmechanismofthepumpbarrelshotgunthatlawenforcementemploysforitshighstopping
powerandonethatourCriminalLawprofessoremployedeectivelyinhisotherclasses.Wewere
somewhatfortunatetohavegatheredintelinformingusthatwewouldbeaskedaboutthemeaningof
personalknowledgeascontemplatedbyRule113,Section5(a)and(b),butwehadyettocomeupwith
adecentanswerforthequestion.

Rule113,Section5,oftheRulesofCourtenumeratesthethreeinstancesinwhichanarrestcanbemade
withoutawarrant.Itreads:

Sec.5.Arrestwithoutwarrantwhenlawful.Apeaceocerorprivatepersonmay,withouta
warrant,arrestaperson;

(a)When,inhispresence,thepersontobearrestedhascommi ed,isactuallycommi ing,oris

a emptingtocommitanoense;

(b)Whenanoensehasinfactjustbeencommi ed,andhehaspersonalknowledgeoffacts
indicatingthatthepersontobearrestedhascommi edit;and

(c)Whenthepersontobearrestedisaprisonerwhohasescapedfromapenalestablishmentor
placewhereheisservingnaljudgmentortemporarilyconnedwhilehiscaseispending,orhas
escapedwhilebeingtransferredfromoneconnementtoanother.

ParagraphArequiresnofurtherexposition.Whatthelawmeantbyinhispresenceisthatthearresting
th
ocerorthecitizenmakinganarrestshouldhaveperceivedbyanyofhissenses(6 sensenot
included)thatacrimehasbeencommi ed,andhegoestothesceneofthecrimetoeectthearrest.

Thuswhenablindpersonwalkingat3pmacrossCarriedoStreethearsthreegunshotscomingfromthe 1/6
https://intentionallacunae.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/hotpursuitarrestsrule113section5boftherevisedrulesoncriminalprocedure/
4/27/2017 HotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section5(b)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureIntentionalLACUNAE

Thuswhenablindpersonwalkingat3pmacrossCarriedoStreethearsthreegunshotscomingfromthe
rightsideoftheroadatadistanceofapproximately4metersfromhisposition,thenthecrimehasbeen
commi edinhispresence.Orwhenablindanddeafpersonperceivesthroughhiswelltrained
olfactorysensethatalargeamountofgunpowderispresentintheair,thenheknowsthatacrimehas
beencommi ednotfarfromwhereheisstanding.Clearly,thereispersonalknowledgeofthefactsand
circumstancesofthecrimeinParagraphA.

ButwhatofsectionB?doesitspeakofthesamepersonalknowledge?Simplyput,personalknowledge
pertainstocognizanceofacircumstanceorfactgaineddirectlythroughrsthandexperienceor
observation.Anadavitisadeclarationbasedonpersonalknowledge,unlessexpresslystated
otherwise.

InhisdissentinSayov.ChiefofPolice[1]
(/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftn1),
JusticeTuazonremarks:

Apoliceocercanseldommakearrestwithpersonalknowledgeoftheoenseandoftheidentityof
thepersonarrestedsucientinitselftoconvict.Torequirehimtomakeanarrestonlywhentheevidencehe
himselfcanfurnishprovesbeyondreasonabledoubttheguiltoftheaccused,wouldendangerthesafetyof
society.Itwouldcrippletheforcesofthelawtothepointofenablingcriminals,againstwhomthereisonly
moralconvictionorprimafacieproofofguilt,toescape.Yetpersonsarrestedonnecessarilyinnocentsothatthe
prosecutinga orneyshouldreleasethem.Furtherandcloserinvestigationnotinfrequentlyconrmthe
suspicionorinformation.

Awiseobservationindeed!Forhowmanybarangaytanodsandpolicemenareactuallyonactiveduty,
readytorespondtothecriesofthehelplessduringtheungodlyhoursofthenight?Mostofthemare
alreadycozyintheirhouses,overdosingontelenovelas,orindulgingonagrandebo leofRedHorse.
Why,evenatjust4intheafternoon,onecanHARDLYseeanylawenforcementauthoritiessurveying
themostdangerousstreetsofManila,whichispracticallyahavenforcrimes.Youjudge,dearreader,
frompersonalexperience.

Inansweringourquestion,weshallresolvetocu ingtheprovisionpiecebypiece.Letsbeginwiththe
elementsofalawfularrestunderRule113,Section5(b).Theyare:

1.Thatacrimehasbeencommi ed
2.Thatthearrestingocerhasprobablecausetomakethearrest
3.Thatsuchprobablecauseisduetohispersonalknowledgeofthefactsindicatingthatthepersonto
bearrestedhascommi edthecrime

Thatacrimehasbeencommi edisapreconditionbecausethelawexpresslymakesitso.Nofurther
questionsasked.Thus,apoliceocercannotmakeanarrestbecausetheshadycharacterofapersonhas
ledhimtobelievethatthela ermighthavecommi edacrime.Thecrimemustcomerst.Thesecond
element,probablycause,isanactualbelieforreasonablegroundsforsuspicion.Itisalsodenedas
factsandcircumstanceswhichwouldleadareasonablyprudentanddiscreetmantobelievethata
crimehasbeencommi edandthatobjects/personsoughtinconnectiontothecrimearelocatedinthe
placesoughttobesearched[2]
(/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftn2).
Notethatsuspicionisnotthesameprobablecause.Suspicionisbasedmerelyonassumptionprobable
causeisbasedonfacts.

Andnally,thepersonalknowledgeofthefacts.InthecaseofPeoplev.Burgos,itwasheldthat:

Thefactofthecommissionoftheoensemustbeundisputed.Thetestofreasonablegroundappliesonlytothe
identityoftheperpetrator.

Moreover,inpreviouscasessuchasPeoplev.Tonog,Jr.[3]
(/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftn3)and
andPosadasv.Ombudsman[4]
(/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftn4)that
personalknowledgeofsuchfactsmaybegainedbytheocerduringthecourseofhisinvestigation.
QuotingTonogJr.:

ItmaybethatthepoliceocerswerenotarmedwithawarrantwhentheyapprehendedAccused
https://intentionallacunae.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/hotpursuitarrestsrule113section5boftherevisedrulesoncriminalprocedure/ 2/6
4/27/2017 HotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section5(b)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureIntentionalLACUNAE

ItmaybethatthepoliceocerswerenotarmedwithawarrantwhentheyapprehendedAccused
appellant.Thewarrantlessarrest,however,wasjustiedunderSection5(b),Rule133(sic)ofthe1985
RulesofCriminalProcedureprovidingthatapeaceocermay,withoutawarrant,arrestapersonwhen
anoensehasinfactjustbeencommi edandhehaspersonalknowledgeoffactsindicatingthatthe
persontobearrestedhascommi edit.Inthiscase,Pat.Leguarda,ineectingthearrestofAccused
appellant,hadknowledgeoffactsgatheredbyhimpersonallyinthecourseofhisinvestigation
indicatingthatAccusedappellantwasoneoftheperpetrators.

However,informationsimplyrelayedtothearrestingocersisnotpersonalknowledge.InPeoplev.
Burgos,acertainMasamlok(ILOVEHISNAME)informedpoliceauthoritiesthattheappellantwas
involvedinsubversiveactivities.Actingonthestrengthofsuchinformationandwithoutsecuringa
judicialwarrant,thepoliceproceededtoappellantshousetoarresthim.There,theyalsoallegedly
recoveredanunlicensedrearmandsubversivematerials.Therewasnopersonalknowledgesincethe
informationcamefromdearbelovedMasamlok,acivilian.AtthetimeofBurgosarrest,hewasnot
involvedinsubversiveactivitiesnorcommi inganyillegalacts.

AndinPeoplev.Encinada[5]
(/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftn5),
wherelawenforcementauthoritiesmadeanarrestbasedonanintelligencereportthattheyreceived,
stating:appellantwhowascarryingmarijuanawouldarrivethenextmorningaboardM/VSweet
Pearl.TheCourtcategoricallystatedthatsuch[r]awintelligenceinformationisnotasucientground
forawarrantlessarrest.Andsince,atthetimeofhisarrest,noactorfactdemonstratingafelonious
enterprisecouldbeascribedtoappellant,therewasnovalidjusticationforhisarrest.

Thus,HotPursuitArrestsorthoselawfularrestscontemplatebyRule113,Sec.5(B),asJustice
PanganibanstatedinhisconcurringopinioninPeoplev.FlorenciaDoria[6]
(/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftn6):

Whilethelawenforcersmaynotactuallywitnesstheexecutionofactsconstitutingtheoense,they
musthavedirectknowledgeorviewofthecrimerightafteritscommission.Theyshouldknowforafactthata
crimewascommi ed.ANDtheymustalsoperceiveactsexhibitedbythepersontobearrested,indicatingthat
heperpetratedthecrime.Again,mereintelligenceinformationthatthesuspectcommi edthecrimewillnot
suce.Thearrestingocersthemselvesmusthavepersonalknowledgeoffactsshowingthatthesuspect
performedthecriminalact.Personalknowledgemeansactualbelieforreasonablegroundsofsuspicion,based
onactualfacts,thatthepersontobearrestedisprobablyguiltyofcommi ingthecrime.

Letmeillustrate:PatrolmanFernandooftheStaAnapoliceprecinctreceivesacomplaintabouta
stabbingincidentintheStaAnaMarket.Thecomplaintcamefromaconcernedtinderawhowitnessed
thestabbing.Thisisthenormalcourseofeventsinacriminalinvestigationthepoliceinvestigators
receiveinformationintheformofacomplaint/witnesstestimonyfromathirdperson.Therst
elementofahotpursuit:Thatacrimehasbeencommi edishearsayevidence.

However,thesecondandmostimportantelementnamely,thefactsconstitutingprobablecausethat
thepersontobearrestedhascommi edthecrimecomplainedofshouldhavebeengained
PERSONALLY.Howisthisgained?byconductinginvestigations,surveillance,orperceivingactsofthe
accusedwhichleadsthearrestingocertobelievethatheshouldrightfullybearrested.

[2](/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftnref2)
Santosv.PryceGases,Inc.,G.R.No.165122,November23,2007,538SCRA474,484,citingColumbia
Pictures,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,329Phil.875,903(1996).

[3](/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftnref3)
h p://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_94533_1992.html
(h p://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/feb1992/gr_94533_1992.html)

[4](/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftnref4)
h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/131492.htm
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/131492.htm)

[5](/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftnref5)
h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/116720.htm
(h p://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/116720.htm)

[6](/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftnref6)
https://intentionallacunae.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/hotpursuitarrestsrule113section5boftherevisedrulesoncriminalprocedure/ 3/6
4/27/2017 HotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section5(b)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureIntentionalLACUNAE

[6](/Users/Guest/Documents/Personal%20Knowledge%20Rule%20113%20Section%205(b).docx#_ftnref6)
h p://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_125299_1999.html
(h p://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_125299_1999.html)

Advertisements
Office365Home(renewal)
Forbusinessesandindividuals
whodemandthebest,Office
Professionalhaswhatyounee
3,499

OfficeHome&Student201...

PostedinLegalisticTagged criminallaw CriminalProcedure crimlaw HotPursuitArrests Lawfularrests

peoplev.burgos peoplev.doria peoplev.encinada personalknowledge probablecause Rule113Section5
sayov.chiefofpolice Section5(b)

12thoughtsonHotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section
5(b)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure

pgsays:
February13,2013at4:02pm
Inyourparagraphof13:5:c,youmakeanassumptionregardingtheblindperson(hearingagunshot
doesnotmakeacrime)itisanassumption,notpersonalknowledge.Again,withthedeaf/blind
personsmellinggunpowder,thisalsowouldbeanassumptionthatacrimehasbeencommi ed,it
wouldnotbepersonalknowledgethatacrimehasbeencommi ed.

Reply
Garvanguellesays:
February13,2013at4:17pm
Thankyouforactuallytakingtimetocommentonmyposts!

ItmightbeinthewayIwordedmypost,butyoufailedtotakethatscenariowithinecontext
ofrule113;whichisthatacrimehasinfactbeencommi ed.WhatIamdiscussinginthat
portionistheconceptofacrimebeingcommi edinthepresenceofthewitness.Thatsaid,the
blindwitnessintheexamplesmelledthegunpowderwhenacrimehasinfactbeen
commi ed.

Inpeoplev.Samonte(16Phil516)thecourtheldinhispresenceistobeconstruedaswhen
theocerseestheoenseBeingcommi ed,althoughatadistance,orHEARSthedisturbance
createtherebyandproceedsatoncetothescenethereof

AlsoinPadillav.CourtofAppeals(1997)awitnesswhoheardthescreechingoftiresand
turnedtoseethevictimlyingonthegroundwasconsideredtohavepersonalknowledge
concerningthcommissionofacrime.

Reply
JaysonDeDiossays:
June19,2013at6:34am
Whathappens,whenforexamplearapevictimgoestothepoliceaftertheallegedrapeandtells
themthatshehadbeensexuallyassaulted.andafterexaminationitisprovedthatshewasraped.
Maytheocersarrestthepurportedassailantswithoutawarrantafter,letssay12hours,afterthe
occurrenceofthecrime?The12hourspriortothearrest,constitutingthetimewhenthevictimcalled
forhelp,wasexaminedandaccompaniedtheocerstoarrestherassailants.

Reply
Garvanguellesays:
June20,2013at6:24am
HiJayson!Thanksfortakinginterestinmypost.Theangertoyourquestionisaresounding
NO!.Thesimplereasonisthat12HOURSisplentyoftimetosecureawarrant.inanumber
ofcases,suchasPeoplev.Musa,thecourtheldthatifthearrestingocershadenoughtimeto

secureaswarrant,thenitisIMPERATIVETHATTHEYSECUREONEBEFOREMAKINGAN4/6
https://intentionallacunae.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/hotpursuitarrestsrule113section5boftherevisedrulesoncriminalprocedure/
4/27/2017 HotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section5(b)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureIntentionalLACUNAE

secureaswarrant,thenitisIMPERATIVETHATTHEYSECUREONEBEFOREMAKINGAN
ARREST.rule113oftheRulesofCourtonHotPursuitarrestsappliesonlyONLYwhenthere
isnotimetosecureawarrant.thusthetermhotpuruit

Reply
JaysonDeDiossays:
June20,2013at6:50am
Whatiftherapeoccurredduringaweekendoraholidayandwaitingtoprocureawarrant
ofarrestwouldtakeaconsiderableamountoftime?

Garvanguellesays:
June20,2013at7:16am
Jayson,therulingsofthecourtonissuessuchastheoneyoupostedareclear:aslongasyou
hadsucienttimetosecureawarrantandleaninformationagainstthewellidentied
perpetrator,thenyoumustdoso.Otherwise,thecourtwouldtreatitasaviolationofthe
accusedsconstitutionalrights.

IfImayadd,theveryfactthatshecametothepoliceandcomplainedofthecrimeagainst
herismodeoflinganinformationagainsttheperpetrator.Moreover,thefactthatshewas
abletohaveaDNAtestprovesthatshehadenoughtimetosecureawarrant.

JaysonDeDiossays:
July10,2013at3:09am
WouldyoubekindenoughtogivemeacitationofthecaseofPeoplev.Musa?thankyou.

Garvanguellesays:
July10,2013at5:11am
Sure.IrememberthiscasefrommyCONSTIIIdays.herestheURLfortheentirecase:
h p://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jan1993/gr_96177_1993.html

AndthegististhattheZamboangapolicewereonthetailofasuspecteddrugdealer
namedMusa.Oneofthempretendedtobeacustomerandboughtsomemarijuanafrom
theMusa.TheNEXTDAY,thepoliceocersbargedintothehouseofMusaWITHOUTA
WARRANT.Thecourtruledthatthewarantlesssearchconductedwasillegal.Quotinghere:

Inthecaseatbar,theNARCOMagentssearchedthepersonoftheappellantafterarresting
himinhishousebutfoundnothing.Theythensearchedtheentirehouseand,inthe
kitchen,foundandseizedaplasticbaghanginginacorner.

Thewarrantlesssearchandseizure,asanincidenttoasuspectslawfularrest,mayextend
beyondthepersonoftheonearrestedtoincludethepremisesorsurroundingsunderhis
immediatecontrol.40Objectsintheplainviewofanocerwhohastherighttobeinthe
positiontohavethatviewaresubjecttoseizureandmaybepresentedasevidence.

Intheinstantcase,theappellantwasarrestedandhispersonsearchedinthelivingroom.
Failingtoretrievethemarkedmoneywhichtheyhopedtond,theNARCOMagents
searchedthewholehouseandfoundtheplasticbaginthekitchen.Theplasticbagwas,
therefore,notwithintheirplainviewwhentheyarrestedtheappellantastojustifyits
seizure.TheNARCOMagentshadtomovefromoneportionofthehousetoanotherbefore
theysightedtheplasticbag.

We,therefore,holdthatunderthecircumstancesofthecase,theplainviewdoctrinedoes
notapplyandthemarijuanacontainedintheplasticbagwasseizedillegallyandcannotbe
presentedinevidencepursuanttoArticleIII,Section3(2)oftheConstitution.

RessieCarinosays:
July13,2013at9:40am
hi!goodday..canyougivemeanothersituationwhereinitconsideredthehotpursuitdoctrine..
thankyou

Reply
Garvanguellesays:
July17,2013at3:44pm
Hi!Checkoutthecasesof:

Peoplev.Malmstedt(searchandarrestwithoutawarrantonamovingvehicle)
SilvavPresidingJudge
https://intentionallacunae.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/hotpursuitarrestsrule113section5boftherevisedrulesoncriminalprocedure/ 5/6
4/27/2017 HotPursuitArrestsRule113,Section5(b)oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureIntentionalLACUNAE

SilvavPresidingJudge
PeoplevMarti.

Gogooglethem.Imsurethecaseswillbeonline.

Reply
rustkysays:
August27,2014at2:56am
Gudday,whatif6hoursaftertheincidentofrape,whentherapevictimwenttothepolicestation,
andthereafterpoliceocerswenttoarrestherassailants,canthepoliceocersarrestthesuspect
withoutawarrant?wouldtheinformationrelayedbythevictimtothepoliceocersconstitute
personalknowledge.uponinvitationofthepolice,canthela erplacethesuspectsforinquest?

Reply
IntentionalLacunaesays:
August28,2014at12:54am
Ifshewenttothepolicestation,thenthepoliceshouldhaveprocuredawarrant.The
CONCEPTofawarantlessarrestisoneinwhichthepolicehadnotimeandnomeanstosecure
awarrantBakaKasiwalanangoras,okayapoedipanatitiyakangidentidadnung
manggagahasa.

Inthesituationyougaveme,thepolicecouldascertaintheidentityoftheoender,thereisno
reasonwhytheycouldnothaveprocuredawarrant.

Reply

CreateafreewebsiteorblogatWordPress.com.

https://intentionallacunae.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/hotpursuitarrestsrule113section5boftherevisedrulesoncriminalprocedure/ 6/6