CRIM22024 3rd meeting

Question 1

Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses.

“In cases where a search is proper.”

Answer 1

The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.
XXXXXX
But as the crime defined in Art. 130 is one of the forms of violation
of domicile, the papers or other belongings must be in the dwelling of their
owner at the time the search is made.

Question 2

Does Art. 130 apply to searches of vehicles or other means of
transportation?

Answer 2

Art. 130 does not apply to searches of vehicles or other means of
transportation, because the searches are not made in the dwelling.

Question 3

Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. ELEMENTS

Answer 3

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That he is armed with search warrant legally procured.
3. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any
person.
4. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing
in the same locality are not present.

Question 4

Search without warrant under the Tariff and Customs Code does
not include a dwelling house.

Answer 4

The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section
2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any
land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house;
and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any
trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board, or stop and search
and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying
any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary
to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases.
(Sections 2208, 2210 and 2211, Tariff and Customs Code) But in the search
of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said “dwelling house may be
entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the
peace.” (Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857)

Question 5

Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of
peaceful meetings.

Answer 5

What are the acts punished in connection with peaceful meetings,
associations, and petitions?
1. By prohibiting or by interrupting, without legal ground, the holding of
a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same.
To commit the crime defined in the first paragraph of Art. 131, the
public officer must act without legal ground.
Note the phrase “without legal ground” and the word “peaceful”
describing the meeting in the first paragraph of Art. 131.
Hence, to constitute a violation of the 1st paragraph of Art. 131, (1) the
meeting must be peaceful, and (2) there is no legal ground for prohibiting, or
interrupting or dissolving that meeting.
2. By hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings.
3. By prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either
alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the
correction of abuses or redress of grievances.

Question 6

Can a private individual commit the crime of Article 131?

Answer 6

No, only a public officer or employee can commit this crime. If the offender
is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order defined in
Art. 153.

Question 7

Is right to peaceful meeting absolute?

Answer 7

No, the right to freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble, though
guaranteed by our Constitution, is not absolute, for it may be regulated in
order that it may not be “injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having
equal rights, nor injurious to the right of the community or society,” and
this power may be exercised under the “police power” of the state, which is
the power to prescribe regulations to promote the good order or safety and
general welfare of the people.

Question 8

To justify suppression of
free speech, there must be?

Answer 8

there must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger
apprehended** is imminent and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one**.
(Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71)

Question 9

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. (Elements)

Answer 9

Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about
to take place or are going on.
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same.

Question 10

Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of?

Answer 10

arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.

Question 11

Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. - The penalty of?

Answer 11

prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall dissolve the same.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.

Question 12

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. — The penalty
of?

Answer 12

prision correccional in its minimum period1 1 shall
be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall
prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion. If the crime shall have been committed with violence
or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.1 2

Question 13

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. (Elements)

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful.

Answer 13

Elements:
1. That the acts complained of were performed (1) in a place devoted
to religious worship, or (2) during the celebration of any religious
ceremony.
2. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.

Question 14

Article 133. “In a place devoted to religious worship.”

Answer 14

“In a place devoted to religious worship.”
It would seem that in the phrase “in a place devoted to religious
worship,” it is not necessary that there is a religious ceremony going on
when the offender performs acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful. The phrase “during the celebration” is separated by the word “or”
from the phrase “place devoted to religious worship,” which indicates that
the “religious ceremony” need not be celebrated in a place of worship.

Question 15

Meaning of religious ceremonies.

Answer 15

Religious ceremonies are those religious acts performed outside of a
church, such as processions and special prayers for burying dead persons.
(Albert)
When the application of the Church of Christ was to hold the meeting
at a public place and the permit expressly stated that the purpose was to
hold a religious rally, what was held on that occasion was not a religious
ceremony, even if a minister was then preaching (“that Jesus Christ was
not God but only a man”). The rally was attended by persons who are not
members of the sect. (People vs. Mandoriao, Jr., C.A., 51 O.G. 4619)

Question 16

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection - How committed?

Answer 16

The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising
publicly and taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government
or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or
any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other armed
forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
(As amended by RA.. No. 6968, approved October 24,1990

Question 17

allegiance

Answer 17

is meant the obligation of fidelity (faithfulness to something to which one is bound by pledge or duty. and
obedience) which the individuals owe to the government under which they
live or to their sovereign, in return for the protection they receive.

Question 18

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection1 —Elements:

Answer 18

1. That there be (a) public uprising, and (b) taking arms against the
   Government.
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either —
   a. to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws:
   (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof; or
   (2) any body of land, naval or other armed forces; or
   b. to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially,
   of any of their powers or prerogatives.

Question 19

Rebellion and insurrection are not synonymous.

Answer 19

The term**“rebellion” **is more frequently used where the object of
the movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the existing
government; while the term
XXXXX
“insurrection” is more commonly employed in reference to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance, or to prevent the exercise of governmental authority with respect to particular matters or subjects. (30 Am. Jur. 1)

Question 20

Rebellion distinguished from treason.

Answer 20

(a) The levying of war against the Government would constitute
treason when performed to aid the enemy. It would also constitute
an adherence to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort. (U.S. vs.
Lagnason, 3 Phil. 472)
The levying of war against the Government during peace
time for any of the purposes mentioned in Art. 134 is rebellion.
(b) Rebellion always involves taking up arms against the
Government; treason may be committed by mere adherence to
the enemy giving him aid or comfort.

Question 21

In rebellion or insurrection, the Revised Penal Code expressly declares
that there must be

Answer 21

a public uprising and the taking up of arms.

Although the law provides that rebellion is committed by rising publicly
and taking arms against the Government, an actual clash of arms with the
forces of the Government is not absolutely necessary. Thus, the mere fact
that the accused knowingly identified himself with the Huk organization
that was openly fighting to overthrow the Government was enough to make
him guilty of the crime of rebellion. (People vs. Cube, C.A., 46 O.G. 4412;
People vs. Perez, C.A., G.R. No. 8186-R, June 30, 1954)

Question 22

Actual clash of arms with the forces of the Government, not
necessary to convict the accused who is in conspiracy with others
actually taking arms against the Government.

Answer 22

Although the law provides that rebellion is committed by rising publicly
and taking arms against the Government, an actual clash of arms with the
forces of the Government is not absolutely necessary. Thus, the mere fact
that the accused knowingly identified himself with the Huk organization
that was openly fighting to overthrow the Government was enough to make
him guilty of the crime of rebellion.

Note: Those merely acting as couriers or spies for the rebels are also
guilty of rebellion.

Question 23

Rebellion distinguished from subversion.

Answer 23

Petitioners contend that rebellion is an element of the crime of
subversion. That contention is not correct because subversion, like treason,
is a crime against national security. Rebellion is a crime against public
order.
XXXXXX
The petitioners were accused of rebellion for having allegedly
undertaken a public uprising to overthrow the government. In contrast,
they were accused of subversion for allegedly being officers and ranking
members of the Communist Party and similar subversive groups. (Buscayno
vs. Military Commission Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 25, 109 SCRA 273)

Question 24

Art. 134-A. Coup d’etat — How committed.

The crime of coup d’etat may be committed with or without civilian
parti

Answer 24

The crime
of coup d’etat is a swift attack, accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or
any military camp or installation, communications networks,
public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously
carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or
persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any
public office or employment, with or without civilian support
or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing
state power. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 6968)

Question 25

Art. 134-A. Coup d’etat -Elements:

The crime of coup d’etat may be committed with or without civilian
parti

Answer 25

Elements:
1. That the offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or
police or holding any public office or employment;
2. That it is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth;
3. That the attack is directed against duly constituted authorities of
the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for
the exercise and continued possession of power;
4. That the purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power.

Question 26

Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup
d’etat.

Answer 26

Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a
rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Any person merely participating or executing the
commands of others in rebellion or insurrection shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion temporal.3
Any person who leads or in any manner directs or
commands others to undertake a coup d’etat shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person in the government service who participates,
or executes directions or commands of others in undertaking
a coup d’etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in
its maximum period.4
Any person not in the government service who
participates, or in any manner supports, finances, abets or
aids in undertaking a coup d’etat shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period.5
When the rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat shall be
under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in
fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and
other documents issued in their name, or performed similar
acts, on behalf of the rebels, shall be deemed a leader of such
rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat. (As amended by Rep.
Act No. 6968)

Question 27

Who are liable for rebellion, insurrection and/or coup d’etat?

Answer 27

The following are liable for rebellion, insurrection and/or coup d’etat:
A. The leaders —
i) Any person who (a) promotes, (b) maintains, or (c) heads a
rebellion or insurrection; or
ii) Any person who (a) leads, (b) directs, or (c) commands others to
undertake a coup d’etat.
B. The participants —
i) Any person who (a) participates, or (b) executes the commands
of others in rebellion, or insurrection;
ii) Any person in the government service who (a) participates, or
(b) executes directions or commands of others in undertaking a
coup d’etat;
iii) Any person not in the government service who (a) participates,
(b) supports, (c) finances, (d) abets, or (e) aids in undertaking a
coup d’etat.
4
XXXXXX
Public officer must take active part, to be liable; mere silence or
omission not punishable in rebellion.

Question 28

Is there a complex crime of rebellion with murder and other
common crimes?

Answer 28

No, common crimes committed a necessary means for
the commission of rebellion
XXXXX
an act
done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a separate
charge.
XXXXX
They are part and parcel of the rebellion
itself, and can not be considered as giving rise to separate crimes
XXXXX
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of
men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtheranceof rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single
crime of rebellion.

Question 29

Levying war

Answer 29

Levying war requires the concurrence of two things: (1) that there be
an actual assembling of men, (2) for the purpose of executing a treasonable
design by force. (Ex parte Bollman and Ex parte Swartwout, 1 U,S. Sup. Ct.
Rep. [4 Cranch 75], p. 571)

The levying of war must be with the intent to overthrow the government
as such, not merely to resist a particular statute or to repel a particular
officer. (3 Wharton’s Criminal Law, 12th Ed.)

Question 30

What is the nature of the crime of rebellion?

Answer 30

The crime of rebellion or of inciting it is by nature a crime of masses,
of a multitude. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues
and plots. (People vs. Almazan, CA., 37 O.G. 1932)
The word “rebellion” evokes, not merely a challenge to the constituted
authorities, but also civil war on a bigger or lesser scale. (People vs.
Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515)
In rebellion or insurrection, the Revised Penal Code expressly declares
that there must be a public uprising and the taking up of arms. (Carino vs.
People, 7 SCRA 900)

Question 31

the crime of subversion

Answer 31

In contrast, the crime of subversion came into existence when the communists sought to dominate the world in order to establish a new social, economic and political order.

Question 32

Art. 134-A. Coup d’etat — How committed?

Answer 32

— The crime
of coup d’etat is a swift attack, accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or
any military camp or installation, communications networks,
public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously
carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or
persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any
public office or employment, with or without civilian support
or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing
state power. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 6968)
93

Question 33

Purpose of Coup d’etat?

Answer 33

for the purpose of seizing or diminishing
state power.

Question 34

Art. 134-A. Coup d’etat — Elements

Answer 34

Elements:
1. That the offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or
police or holding any public office or employment;
2. That it is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth;
3. That the attack is directed against duly constituted authorities of
the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for
the exercise and continued possession of power;
4. That the purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power.

Question 35

The crime of coup d’etat may be committed with or without civilian
participation?

Answer 35

True

Question 36

Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat.

Answer 36

Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat. - Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal.

Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup d’etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or commands of others in undertaking a coup d’etat shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period.

Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports, finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup d’etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.

When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d’etat shall be under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, as performed similar acts, on behalf or the rebels shall be deemed a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or coup d’etat. (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved on October 24, 1990).

Question 37

Who are liable for rebellion, insurrection and/or coup d’etat?

Answer 37

The following are liable for rebellion, insurrection and/or coup d’etat:
A. The leaders —
i) Any person who (a) promotes, (b) maintains, or (c) heads a
rebellion or insurrection; or
ii) Any person who (a) leads, (b) directs, or (c) commands others to
undertake a coup d’etat.
B. The participants —
i) Any person who (a) participates, or (b) executes the commands
of others in rebellion, or insurrection;
ii) Any person in the government service who (a) participates, or
(b) executes directions or commands of others in undertaking a
coup d’etat;
iii) Any person not in the government service who (a) participates,
(b) supports, (c) finances, (d) abets, or (e) aids in undertaking a
coup d’etat.

Question 38

Political crimes and common crimes, distinguished.
Political

Answer 38

Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political
order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a
political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime
usually regarded as common, like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose
of removing from the allegiance “to the Government the territory of the
Philippine Islands or any part thereof,” then said offense becomes stripped
of its “common” complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime
of rebellion, the former acquired the political character of the latter. (People
vs. Hernandez, supra)

Question 39

Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection.

Answer 39

The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000)

The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000) and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000). (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990).

Question 40

Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection.
two crimes are defined and penalized in this article.

Answer 40

Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion are two different crimes,
namely:
(1) Conspiracy to commit rebellion, and
(2) Proposal to commit rebellion.
There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or more persons come
to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for
any of the purposes of rebellion and decide to commit it.
There is proposal to commit rebellion when the person who has
decided to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for any of
the purposes of rebellion proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.

Question 41

4.) Rolito Go v. CA, GR. 101837, February 11,1992

petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station to verif

Answer 41

Petitioner entered Wilson St., where it is a one-way street and started travelling in the opposite or “wrong” direction. At the corner of Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., petitioner’s and Maguan’s cars nearly bumped each other. Petitioner alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene.

WON the warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful
1. NO. The arrest was invalid.

l First, the trial court’s reliance in the case of Umil v. Ramos is incorrect. Herein, appellant was charged with murder while in Umil, the accused was charged with subversion, a continuing offense.
l The petitioner’s appearance to the police station did not mean he was arrested at all. Petitioner neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime.
l Second, the instant case did not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
l Petitioner’s “arrest” took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan.
l The “arresting” officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan.
l 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).
l Moreover, none of the “arresting” officers had any “personal knowledge” of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan.
l 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.”

Question 42

2.) Abelita v. Doria, GR. 117072, August 14, 2009

shooting incident/he was reported to be involved in the incident.

Answer 42

The Issues

The issues in this case are the following:

1. Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure were illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure;

The petition has no merit.

Application of Section 5, Rule 113 of the

1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure

Petitioner alleges that his arrest and the search were unlawful under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioner alleges that for the warrantless arrest to be lawful, the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner alleges that the alleged shooting incident was just relayed to the arresting officers, and thus they have no personal knowledge of facts as required by the Rules.

We do not agree.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure states:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. ¾ A peace officer or a private person may, without a 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.

For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the offender has just committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.5

Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.6 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.7 A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.8

Question 43

3.) Posadas v. Ombudsman, GR 131492, September 29, 2000

Answer 43

Two issues are raised in this case, to wit: (1) Whether the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the NBI could be validly made without a warrant; and (2) Whether there was probable cause for prosecuting petitioners for violation of P.D. No. 1829. We answer these questions in the negative.

There is no question that this case does not fall under paragraphs (a) and (c). The arresting officers in this case did not witness the crime being committed. Neither are the students fugitives from justice nor prisoners who had escaped from confinement. The question is whether paragraph (b) applies because a crime had just been committed and the NBI agents had personal knowledge of facts indicating that Narag and Taparan were probably guilty.
xxxxx
In contrast, 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.

We have already explained what constitutes “personal knowledge” on the part of the arresting officers:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

“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. 8

Indeed, 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. On the contrary, Taparan and Narag, under the supervision of the U.P. police, were taking part in a peace talk called to put an end to the violence on the campus.

To allow the arrest which the NBI intended to make without warrant would in effect allow them to supplant the courts. The determination of the existence of probable cause that the persons to be arrested committed the crime was for the judge to make. The law authorizes a police officer or even an ordinary citizen to arrest criminal offenders only if the latter are committing or have just committed a crime. Otherwise, we cannot leave to the police officers the determination of whom to apprehend if we are to protect our civil liberties. This is evident from a consideration of the requirements before a judge can order the arrest of suspects. Art. III, �2 of the Constitution provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Question 44

explain what constitutes “personal knowledge” on the part of the arresting officers

Answer 44

“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. 8

Indeed, 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. On the contrary, Taparan and Narag, under the supervision of the U.P. police, were taking part in a peace talk called to put an end to the violence on the campus.

To allow the arrest which the NBI intended to make without warrant would in effect allow them to supplant the courts. The determination of the existence of probable cause that the persons to be arrested committed the crime was for the judge to make. The law authorizes a police officer or even an ordinary citizen to arrest criminal offenders only if the latter are committing or have just committed a crime. Otherwise, we cannot leave to the police officers the determination of whom to apprehend if we are to protect our civil liberties. This is evident from a consideration of the requirements before a judge can order the arrest of suspects. Art. III, �2 of the Constitution provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.