1.JUDGE FELIMON ABELITA III VS. P/SUPT. GERMAN B.
DORIA Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which
and SPO3 CESAR RAMIREZ,
G.R. No. 170672, August 14, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner Judge Abelita filed a civil action against defendant
police officers German Doria et al., for violation of Article 32(4)
and 9 of the Civil Code for conducting a search without warrant
on plaintiff’s vehicle.
On the part of defendants, they claimed that the search was
prompted by an information relayed to them regarding a
shooting incident in which respondent judge was alleged to be
involved. The police officers claimed that when the judge was
invited for investigation the same attempted to drive away. The
defendants followed the judge to his residence. When the latter
opened his car, the police officers saw a gun both in the front
and backsit of the vehicle.
In his argument, Judge Abelita posits that the warrantless
search is unlawful as the defendants had no personal knowledge
of his commission of an offense and merely relied on an
information relied to them by another.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search is valid?
RULING: YES. We do not agree.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure states:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. 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
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
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does
not require the arresting officers to personally witness the commission
of the offense with their own eyes. In this case, P/Supt. Doria received
a report about the alleged shooting incident. SPO3 Ramirez
investigated the report and learned from witnesses that petitioner was
involved in the incident. They were able to track down petitioner, but
when invited to the police headquarters to shed light on the incident,
petitioner initially agreed then sped up his vehicle, prompting the
police authorities to give chase. Petitioner’s act of trying to get away,
coupled with the incident report which they investigated, is enough to
raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to
the existence of probable cause.
Plain View Doctrine
The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view doctrine.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an
officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.9 The plain view
doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the law
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification
for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular
area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure.10
In this case, the police authorities were in the area because that was
where they caught up with petitioner after the chase. They saw the
firearms inside the vehicle when petitioner opened the door. Since a
shooting incident just took place and it was reported that petitioner
was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that
the firearms may be evidence of a crime. Hence, they were justified in
seizing the firearms.