Valid suspicion

This is another case on the legality of a warrantless arrest of an offender that has just committed an offense. One of the questions here is whether it is necessary for the arresting officers to have personal knowledge or have personally witnessed the commission of the crime.

The case stemmed from a shooting incident that happened in a Barangay of a Visayan town that resulted in the wounding of a resident. Acting on the telephone call of the victim’s relative, Police Supt. Dario sent SPO3 Romy to investigate. After interviewing witnesses, Romy later reported and confirmed the shooting incident where a certain Wally was wounded and that Abe, an incumbent Judge was at the scene of the shooting but who just left the place together with his wife.

Acting on this report, Supt. Dario and his men including SPO3 Romy started looking for Judge Abe. At around 12 noon, they spotted him and his wife on their way home. Dario and his men requested Abe and his wife to go with them to the PNP Provincial Headquarters. At this point, Abe and police officer’s version already differed.

According to Abe, he was suspicious of the request and told Dario and Romy that he would proceed to the headquarters after he had brought his wife home. But when he parked his car in front of their house, Abe said that Romy grabbed him and forcibly took the key of his Toyota Lite Ace van, barged into the vehicle and conducted a search without warrant. The search resulted in the seizure of a licensed shotgun. He said he presented the license to Dario and Romy. But Romy continued his search and he produced a .45 caliber pistol which was allegedly found inside the vehicle. Then Dario and Romy arrested him and detained him without appropriate charges. So he sued Dario and Romy before the RTC of QC for damages for illegal detention and violation of his right to be secure against illegal searches and seizure under Article 32 of the Civil Code.

Dario and Romy on the other hand claimed that when they requested Judge Abe to go with them to their headquarters for involvement in the shooting incident, he agreed but suddenly sped up and proceeded to his residence. They caught up with him as he opened the door of his car to run towards his house and saw a gun at the front seat of the vehicle beside the driver’s seat. They also saw a shotgun behind the driver’s seat. So they confiscated the firearms and arrested Abe. They also arrested other men identified to be with him and Abe was charged with illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder. An administrative case was also filed against him where he was found guilty of conduct unbecoming a judge and dismissed by the Supreme Court.

On July 10, 2004, the QC RTC dismissed the complaint for damages filed by Abe against Dario and Romy. The RTC found that Abe was at the scene of the shooting and that the police officers who conducted arrest and seizure were of the belief, based on reasonable grounds, that Abe was involved in the shooting and that the firearm used in the commission of the offense was in his possession. So the RTC said that the warrantless arrest and seizure were legal giving more credence to the testimonies of the police officers. Judge Abe insisted that the RTC was wrong because the arresting officers do not have personal knowledge that he has committed, is actually committing or about to commit an offense. Here the alleged shooting incident was just relayed to them. So his arrest was illegal said the Judge. Was he correct?

No. Personal knowledge of the facts must be based on probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when it 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 coupled with good faith on the part of the arresting officers. It does not require the arresting officer to personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. In this case, Romy investigated the case and learned from witnesses that the Judge was involved. They were able to track him down but when invited to the HQ to shed light on the incident, he partially agreed then sped up his vehicle. These are enough facts and circumstances to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officers as to the existence of probable cause. So the warrantless arrest was legal (Judge Felimon Abelita III vs. Doria and Ramirez, G.R. 170672, August 14, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]