TITLE: JOEY M. PESTILOS, et al. v.

MORENO GENEROSO and PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182601
DATE: November 10, 2014
PONENTE: Justice Brion.
HEADING: Warrantless arrest; In “hot pursuit”.
APPELLEE: Moreno Generoso and People of the Philippines
APPELLANT: Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez and
Ronald Munoz

FACTS: The petitioners and the respondent Atty. Generoso were neighbors in Quezon
City. On February 20, 2005, at around 3:15 a.m., an altercation ensued between them,
resulting in the mauling of Atty. Generoso. He called the police to report the incident.
The police officers arrived at the scene less than an hour later and saw Atty. Generoso
badly beaten. He pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled him. The police
officers invited the petitioners to go to the police station for investigation. The
petitioners went with them. The City Prosecutor of Quezon City found that the
petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon and charged them with
attempted murder.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED:
That on or about the 20th day of February, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another,
with intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage
of superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence
the commission of the crime of Murder directly by overt acts, by then and there
stabbing one Atty. MORENO GENEROSO y FRANCO, with a bladed weapon, but said
accused were not able to perform all the acts of execution which would produce the
crime of Murder by reason of some cause/s or accident other than their own
spontaneous desistance, that is, said complainant was able to parry the attack, to his
damage and prejudice.

NATURE OF THE CASE: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and upheld the validity of the
warrantless arrest and the inquest proceeding.
 The RTC denied the petitioners’ urgent motion for regular preliminary
investigation and their motion for reconsideration.
 The City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed an information for attempted murder
against the petitioners.
 The police officers arrested the petitioners without a warrant and brought them
to the police station for inquest.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

 Whether or not the petitioners were validly arrested without a warrant.
 Whether or not the petitioners were lawfully arrested when they were merely
invited to the police precinct.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS
 The petitioners argued that they were not lawfully arrested because no warrant
was issued and they only went to the police station as a response to the
invitation of the arresting officers.
 The petitioners also claimed that no valid warrantless arrest took place because
the police officers had no personal knowledge that they were the perpetrators of
the crime and the arrest took place two hours after the commission of the crime.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
 The respondents argued that the petitioners were lawfully arrested without a
warrant under the rule on “hot pursuit” because the crime had just been
committed and the police officers had probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the petitioners committed it.
 The respondents also argued that the word “invited” in the affidavit of arrest
carried the meaning of a command and that the petitioners did not deny their
participation in the incident when confronted by the police officers.
HELD/RATIO:
 The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were validly arrested without a
warrant under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The Court ruled that the elements of a valid warrantless arrest were
present in this case, namely: (1) the crime had just been committed; and (2) the
arresting officers had probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the petitioners committed it.
 The Court explained that the personal knowledge of the arresting officers was
based on the complaint of Atty. Generoso, their observation of his bruises, his
positive identification of the petitioners, and the petitioners’ admission of their
involvement in the incident. The Court also noted that the arrest took place less
than an hour after the commission of the crime, thus satisfying the element of
immediacy.
 The Court further explained that the term “invited” in the affidavit of arrest did
not negate the validity of the warrantless arrest because it was merely a
euphemism for the word “arrested” and that the petitioners did not object to
going with the police officers.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of

merit and AFFIRM the decision dated January 21, 2008 and the resolution dated April
17, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91541. Costs against the
petitioners. SO ORDERED.