B.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening, Alonzo stopped who stayed inside the tricycle prevented him
his tricycle by the side of Nita's Drugstore, from leaving and threatened in fact to shoot him.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR General Luna St., Cabanatuan City, when three
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF GREATER women flagged him. Parked at a distance of Meanwhile, "Dodong" Bisaya succeeded in
INJURY about one and a-half (1 1/2) meters in front of taking the victim's bag, but before boarding the
him was a tricycle driven by accused Joselito del tricycle "Jun" Marquez mercilessly shot the
G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999 Rosario. At that point, Alonzo saw two (2) men victim on the head while she was lying prone on
and a woman grappling for possession of a bag. the ground. After the shooting, "Dodong" Bisaya
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- After taking hold of the bag one of the two men boarded the sidecar of the tricycle while "Jun"
armed with a gun started chasing a man who Marquez rode behind del Rosario and ordered
appellee,
was trying to help the woman, while the other him to start the engine and drive towards
vs.
JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO y snatcher kicked the woman sending her to the Dicarma. While inside his tricycle, del Rosario
PASCUAL, accused-appellant. ground. Soon after, the armed man returned and overheard his passengers saying that they
while the woman was still on the ground he shot would throw the bag at Zulueta St. where there
her on the head. The bag taken by the man was were cogon grasses. 11 Upon arriving at
brought to the tricycle of accused del Rosario Dicarma, the three (3) men alighted and warned
where someone inside received the bag. The del Rosario not to inform the police authorities
BELLOSILLO, J armed man then sat behind the driver while his about the incident otherwise he and his family
companion entered the sidecar. When the would be harmed. 12 Del Rosario then went
ON AUTOMATIC REVIEW is the decision of the tricycle sped away Alonzo gave chase and was home. 13 Because of the threat, however, he did
court a quo finding accused Joselito del Rosario able to get the plate number of the tricycle. He not report the matter to the owner of the tricycle
y Pascual guilty as co-principal in the crime of also recognized the driver, after which he went nor to the barangay captain and the police. 14
Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to to the nearest police headquarters and reported
death, and to pay the heirs of victim Virginia the incident.4 As earlier stated, the court a quo found accused
Bernas P550,000.00 as actual damages and Joselito del Rosario guilty as charged and
P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary Accused Joselito del Rosario gave his own sentenced him to death. He now contends in this
damages.1 version of the incident: At around 5:30 in the automatic review that the court a quo erred in:
afternoon he was hired for P120.005 by a certain (1) Not finding the presence of threat and
Joselito del Rosario y Pascual, Ernesto "Boy" Santos,6 his co-accused. Their original irresistible force employed upon him by his co-
Marquez alias "Jun," Virgilio Santos alias "Boy agreement was that he would drive him to a accused Virgilio "Boy" Santos, Ernesto "Jun"
Santos" and John Doe alias "Dodong" were cockpit at the Bias Edward Coliseum.7 However Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya; (2) Not
charged with the special complex crime of despite their earlier arrangement Boy Santos considering his defense that he was not part of
Robbery with Homicide for having robbed directed him to proceed to the market place to the conspiracy among co-accused "Boy" Santos,
Virginia Bernas, a 66-year old businesswoman, fetch "Jun" Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya. He "Jun" Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya to commit
of P200,000.00 in cash and jewelry and on the (del Rosario) acceded.8 Marquez and Bisaya the crime of Robbery with Homicide; (3) Not
occasion thereof shot and killed her.2 boarded in front of the parking lot of Merced considering the violations on his constitutional
Drugstore at the public market.9 Subsequently, rights as an accused; and, (4) Not considering
While accused Joselito del Rosario pleaded not he was asked to proceed and stop at the corner that there was no lawful warrantless arrest within
guilty, 3 Virgilio "Boy" Santos and John of Burgos and General Luna Sts. where Bisaya the meaning of Sec. 5, Rule 113, of the Rules of
Doe alias "Dodong" remained at large. Ernesto alighted on the pretext of buying a cigarette. The Court. 15
"Jun" Marquez was killed in a police encounter. latter then accosted the victim Virginia Bernas
Only Joselito del Rosario was tried. and grappled with her for the possession of her The conviction of del Rosario must be set aside.
bag. Jun Marquez alighted from the tricycle to
His claim for exemption from criminal liability
help "Dodong" Bisaya. 10 Accused del Rosario
These facts were established by the prosecution under Art. 12, par. 5, Revised Penal Code as he
tried to leave and seek help but "Boy Santos"
from the eyewitness account of tricycle driver acted under the compulsion of an irresistible
Paul Vincent Alonzo: On 13 May 1996 between force must be sustained. He was then unarmed
and unable to protect himself when he was safety of a person whom he only saw for the first helper of the
prevented at gunpoint by his co-accused from time that day. 19 lady?
leaving the crime scene during the perpetration
of the robbery and killing, and was only forced to Corollary with the defense of del Rosario, we A: He was the
help them escape after the commission of the hold that the trial court erred when it said that it one holding the
crime. 16 was "Boy" Santos who left the tricycle to chase gun, sir . . . .
the companion of the victim and then shot the
But the trial court ruled that his fear was merely victim on the head, instantly killing her. 20 A Q: What
speculative, fanciful and remote, hence, could careful and meticulous scrutiny of the transcripts happened when
not be considered uncontrollable; and that a gun and records of the testimonies of witness Alonzo the bag of the
pointed at him did not constitute irresistible force and del Rosario himself, reveals that it was woman was
because it fell short of the test required by law "Jun" Marquez who ran after the victim's helper already taken
and jurisprudence. 17 and fired at the victim. Witness Alonzo testified by the two men
on direct examination — who grappled
We disagree. A person who acts under the the same from
compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who Q: What was her?
acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear that unusual
of equal or greater injury, is exempt from incident that A: The man
criminal liability because he does not act with transpired in who chased the
freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus that place at helper of the
actus. An act done by me against my will is not that time? lady returned to
my act. The force contemplated must be so the scene while
formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere A: I saw two the other man
instrument who acts not only without will but men and a lady was then
against his will. The duress, force, fear or grappling for kicking the lady
intimidation must be present, imminent and the possession who in turn fell
impending, and of such nature as to induce a of a bag, to the ground,
well-grounded apprehension of death or serious sir . . . . sir.
bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future
injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of Q: What Q: What
such a character as to leave no opportunity for
happened after happened to
the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
the bag of the the lady who fell
combat. 18
lady was to the ground?
grabbed by the
As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by two men? A: The man
fear when threatened with weapons, even those
who chased the
less powerful than a gun, such as knives and
A: One helper helper of the
clubs. People will normally, usually and probably
of the lady was lady returned
do what an armed man asks them to do, nothing
chased by the and then shot
more, nothing less. In the instant case, del other man, sir. the woman who
Rosario was threatened with a gun. He could not was then lying
therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to
Q: Who was on the ground,
help a stranger. A person under the same
that man who sir . . . .
circumstances would be more concerned with
his personal welfare and security rather than the chased the
Q: What about A: They went companion hold
the bag, what away, sir . . . . ing a gun
happened to chased the
the bag? Q: Will you helper of the
please tell the deceased going
A: The bag was Court in what towards Burgos
taken to a portion of the Avenue, sir.
motorcycle, sir. tricycle did
these men sit in Q: What
Q: Will you the tricycle? happen (sic)
please state afterwards?
before the the A: The man
Court what you who was A: The man
noticed from the holding the with the gun
tricycle which gun sat himself returned and
was at a behind the then while the
distance of driver while the victim was lying
about one and other down in this
a half meter? man entered spot the man
the sidecar, holding a gun
A: There was a sir.21 shot the victim,
passenger sir. 22
inside the On the continuation of his direct examination,
tricycle, sir . . . . after an ocular inspection on the crime scene On cross-examination, the same witness further
conducted by the trial court, witness Alonzo clarified —
Q: What categorically
happened to stated — Q: So, you saw
that woman that the two other
was shot by the Q: Will you accused
man who please tell us returned back
grappled for the where in to the tricycle?
possession of particular did
the bag? you see the A: Yes, sir.
accused who
A: She was no was then
Q: And one of
longer moving holding the gun
their companion
and lying down, fired at the
was already
sir. victim?
inside the
tricycle?
Q: After the A: At the
shooting by one time one
xxx xxx xxx
of the two men man was
of the woman kicking the
victim it was Court: There
what else was somebody
happened? then his other
inside the
 tricycle where seated at the Q: And was the
the handbag tricycle, which bag grabbed
was given. tricycle was and by whom?
used by the
A: Yes, sir. assailants? A: Yes, sir, by
Dodong Visaya
Q: And the one A: Yes, sir. was able to
who sat at the grab the bag.
back of the Q: Then what
tricycle driver did you do? Q: And after
was the person that what
with the gun? A: I tried to happened?
escape, sir, but
A: Yes, sir. 23 I was stopped A: Both of them
by them. rode inside my
On the other hand, accused Del Rosario tricycle, sir.
declared during the direct examination that — Q: When you
said "they" to Court: Did you
Q: . . . . On the whom are you not see any
evening of May referring? shooting?
13, 1996 you
were the driver A: Boy Santos A: There was,
of the tricycle and Jun sir.
as testified to Marquez, sir.
by Eduardo Q: Who was
Nalagon? Q: And at that shot?
time where was
A: Yes, sir. Boy Santos? A: Jun Marquez
shot the
Q: Now, you A: He was woman, sir . . . .
also heard that inside the
there was a tricycle, sir. Q: When the
shoot out near bag of the
the Cathedral Q: And what woman was
and the Nita's about Jun being grabbed
Drugstore at Marquez? you know that
Gen. Tinio St.? what was
A: He alighted transpiring was
A: Yes, sir. from the tricycle wrong and
and helped him illegal?
xxx xxx xxx grabbed (sic)
the bag of the A: Yes, sir.
Court: At that victim.
time you were
Q: But you did to escape that bag of the
not try to leave? was the time woman, sir.
when Boy
A: I tried to Santos Q: How about
leave but Boy threatened you your two
Santos who if you will companions,
was inside my escape what are (sic)
tricycle something will they doing while
prevented me. happen to your Dodong Bisaya
family? was grabbing
Q: During that the bag of the
time before you A: Yes, sir. woman?
leave (sic) how
many firearms Q: After the A: Jun Marquez
did you see? shooting who was helping
first boarded Dodong Bisaya,
A: Two the tricycle, Boy sir.
firearms, sir, (Jun?) Marquez
one in the or Dodong Q: What
possession of Visaya? happened after
Boy (Jun?) Jun Marquez
Marquez and A: Dodong helped Dodong
one in the Visaya, sir. Bisaya?
possession of
Boy Santos . . . Q: And A: I heard a
. immediately gunshot and I
thereafter Jun saw the woman
Q: And at the Marquez lying down . . . .
time when the boarded your
shooting took tricycle sitting at Q: You could
place where your back? have ran away
was Boy to seek the help
Santos? A: Yes, sir. 24 of the police or
any private
A: He was still On cross-examination, accused further stated — persons?
inside my
tricycle, sir. A: I was not
Q: After
stopping in that able to ask for
Q: And during place for one help because
the shooting minute what Boy Santos
when Boy else happened? pointed his gun
Santos was to me, sir.
inside the A: I saw
tricycle and Dodong Bisaya Q: Was the gun
when you tried being carried by
grabbing the
Boy Santos, is A: Yes, sir. the testimony of witness Alonzo in juxtaposition
the one that is with the testimony of del Rosario, it can be
used in Q: Now, is it not deduced that "Jun" Marquez was the person
shooting the old a fact that at the witness Alonzo was referring to when he
woman? time you stop mentioned that a helper of the lady was chased
(sic) your "by the other man," and that this "other man"
A: No, sir . . . . tricycle which could not be "Boy" Santos who stayed inside the
was loaded by tricycle and to whom the bag was handed over.
Q: Where was your other three This conclusion gives credence to the claim of
co-accused in del Rosario that "Boy" Santos never left the
Boy Santos
this case, all of tricycle, and to his allegation that "Boy" Santos
when Dodong
them alighted stayed inside the tricycle precisely to threaten
Bisaya and Jun
and that Boy him with violence and to prevent him from
Marquez were
grappling for Santos ran after fleeing; that there could have been no other
the possession a helper of the plausible reason for "Boy" Santos to stay in the
victim going tricycle if the accused was indeed a conspirator;
of the
towards the that "Boy" Santos could have just left the tricycle
handbag?
public market and helped in the commission of the crime,
along Burgos particularly when he saw the victim grappling
A: He was then with "Dodong" Bisaya and resisting the attempts
inside the Street?
to grab her bag; and, that "Boy" Santos opted to
tricycle, sir . . . remain inside the tricycle to fulfill his preordained
. 25 A: He did not
role of threatening del Rosario and insuring that
alight from the
he would not escape and leave them behind. 27
Q: Mr. Witness, tricycle, sir.
you testified Even if the tricycle of del Rosario was only
that the reason Court: Are you
parked one meter and a half (1-1/2) in front of
why you just quite sure of
the tricycle of witness Alonzo, the latter still
cannot leave that?
could not have totally seen and was not privy to
the area where events that were transpiring inside the
the incident A: Yes, sir. 26 vehicle, i.e., the pointing of the gun by "Boy"
occurred is Santos at del Rosario simultaneously with the
because a gun Del Rosario maintains that "Boy" Santos never robbing and shooting of the victim. From the
was pointed to left the tricycle and that the latter pointed his gun exhibits submitted by the prosecution panel the
you by Boy at him and threatened to shoot if he tried to back of the sidecar of del Rosario tricycle was
Santos and he escape. He also asserts that it was "Jun" not transparent. 28
was telling you Marquez who shot the victim and sat behind him
that you should in the tricycle. There is no doubt that the fear entertained by
not do anything
del Rosario because of the gun directly pointed
against their From the narration of witness Alonzo, these at him was real and imminent. Such fear
will, they will kill events stood out: that after the bag of the victim
you and your rendered him immobile and subject to the will of
was grabbed, her male helper was chased by a Boy Santos, making him for the moment an
family will be
man holding a gun; that the gunwielder returned automaton without a will of his own. In other
killed also, is
and shot the victim and then sat behind the words, in effect, he could not be any more than
that correct?
driver of the tricycle; and, that the bag was given a mere instrument acting involuntarily and
to a person who was inside the tricycle. Taking against his will. He is therefore exempt from
criminal liability since by reason of fear of bodily it is proved that two or more persons aimed by Mere companionship does not establish
harm he was compelled against his will to their acts towards the accomplishment of the conspiracy. 35 The only incriminating evidence
transport his co-accused away from the crime same unlawful object, each doing a part so that against del Rosario is that he was at the scene
scene. their combined acts, though apparently of the crime but he has amply explained the
independent, were in fact connected and reason for his presence and the same has not
On the issue of conspiracy, the trial court cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal been successfully refuted by the prosecution. As
anchored del Rosario's conviction on his association and a concurrence of sentiment, a stated earlier, he feared for his safety and
participation in the orchestrated acts of "Boy" conspiracy may be inferred though no actual security because of the threat made by his co-
Santos, "Jun" Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya. meeting among them to concert means is accused that he would be killed should he shout
According to the trial court, del Rosario proved. That would be termed an implied for help. No complicity can be deduced where
facilitated the escape of the other malefactors conspiracy. 32 Nevertheless, mere knowledge, there is absolutely no showing that the accused
from the crime scene and conspiracy between acquiescence or approval of the act, without the directly participated in the overt act of robbing
accused and his passengers was evident cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not and shooting although he was with the persons
because "while the grappling of the bag, the enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy, who robbed and killed the victim. 36
chasing of the helper of the victim and the but that there must be intentional participation in
shooting that led to the death of Virginia Bernas the transaction with a view to the furtherance of That del Rosario did not disclose what he knew
were happening, accused Joselito del Rosario the common design and purpose. Conspiracy about the incident to the authorities, to his
was riding on his tricycle and the engine of the must be established, not by conjectures, but by employer or to the barangay captain does not
motor was running;" 29 that the "accused did not positive and conclusive evidence. In fact, the affect his credibility. The natural hesitance of
deny that the tricycle driven by him and under same degree of proof necessary to establish the most people to get involved in a criminal case is
his control was hired and used by his co- crime is required to support a finding of the of judicial notice. 37 It must be recalled that del
accused in the commission of the crime; neither presence of a criminal conspiracy, which is, Rosario was merely a tricycle driver with a family
did he deny his failure to report to the authorities proof beyond reasonable doubt. 33 to look after. Given his quite limited means, del
the incident of robbery, killing and fleeing away Rosario understandably did not want to get
from the scene of the crime." 30 In the instant case, while del Rosario admits that involved in the case so he chose to keep his
he was at the locus criminis as he was the driver silence. Besides, he was threatened with
We disagree with the trial court. A conspiracy in of the getaway vehicle, he nonetheless rebuts physical harm should he squeal.
the statutory language exists when two or more the imputation of guilt against him by asserting
concerning the commission of a felony and that he had no inkling of the malevolent design Del Rosario further contends that there was
decide to commit it. The objective of the of his co-accused to rob and kill since he was violation of his right to remain silent, right to
conspirators is to perform an act or omission not given any briefing thereof. He was merely have competent and independent counsel
punishable by law. That must be their intent. hired by Boy Santos to drive to an agreed preferably of his own choice, and right to be
There is need for "concurrence of wills" or "unity destination and he was prevented at gunpoint informed of these rights as enshrined and
of action and purpose" or for "common and joint from leaving the scene of the crime since he guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. 38 As testified to
purpose and design." Its manifestation could be was ordered to help them escape. by SPO4 Geronimo de Leon, the prosecution
shown by "united and concerted action." 31 witness who was the team leader of the
In this case, the trial court stated that "there is policemen who investigated the 13 May incident,
Admittedly, direct proof is not essential to no evidence that the accused came to an during his cross-examination —
establish conspiracy. Since by its nature agreement concerning the commission of the
conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy, it can felony and decided to commit the Upon finding the name of the
rarely be proved by direct evidence. same." 34 Therefore, in order to convict the owner of the tricycle, they
Consequently, the presence of the concurrence accused, the presence of an implied conspiracy proceeded to Bakod Bayan in
of minds which is involved in conspiracy may be is required to be proved beyond reasonable the house of the barangay
inferred from proof of facts and circumstances doubt. However, the fact that del Rosario was captain where the owner of the
which, taken together, apparently indicate that with the other accused when the crime was tricycle was summoned and
they are merely parts of some complete whole. If committed is insufficient proof to show cabal. who in turn revealed the driver's
 name and was invited for were afraid that he might attempt to investigation. From the time he was "invited" for
interview. The driver was escape. 40 questioning at the house of the baranggay
accused Joselito del Rosario captain, he was already under effective custodial
who volunteered to name his Custodial investigation is the stage where the investigation, but he was not apprised nor made
passengers on May 13, 1996. police investigation is no longer a general inquiry aware thereof by the investigating officers. The
On the way to the police station, into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus police already knew the name of the tricycle
accused informed them of the on a particular suspect taken into custody by the driver and the latter was already a suspect in the
bag and lunch kit's location and police who carry out a process of interrogation robbing and senseless slaying of Virginia
the place where the hold-uppers that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. Bernas. Since the prosecution failed to establish
may be found and they reported It is well-settled that it encompasses any that del Rosario had waived his right to remain
these findings to their officers, question initiated by law enforces after a person silent, his verbal admissions on his participation
Capt. Biag and Capt. Cruz. After has been taken into custody or otherwise in the crime even before his actual arrest were
lunch, they proceeded to Brgy. deprive of his freedom of action in any inadmissible against him, as the same
Dicarma composed of 15 armed significant way. 41 This concept of custodial transgressed the safeguards provided by law
men where a shoot-out investigation has been broadened by RA and the Bill of Rights.
transpired that lasted from 1:00 7438 42 to include "the practice of issuing an
to 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. "invitation" to a person who is investigated in Del Rosario also avers that his arrest was
After a brief encounter, they connection with an offense he is suspected to unlawful since there was no warrant therefor.
went inside the house where have committed." Section 2 of the same Act Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of provides: 43
they found Marquez dead further provides that —
holding a magazine and a gun. Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant;
While all of these were
. . . . Any public officer or when lawful. — A peace officer
happening, accused del Rosario
employee, or anyone acting or a private person may, without
was at the back of the school,
under his order or in his place, a warrant, arrest a person: (a)
after which they went back to who arrests, detains or When, in his presence, the
the police station. The investigates any person for the person to be arrested has
investigator took the statement
commission of an offense shall committed, is actually
of the accused on May 14,
inform the latter, in a language committing, or is attempting to
1996, and was only subscribed
known and understood by him, commit an offense; (b) When an
on May 22, 1996. All the while,
of his right to remain silent and offense has in fact been
he was detained in the police to have competent and committed and he has personal
station as ordered by the Fiscal. independent counsel, preferably knowledge of facts indicating
His statements were only signed
of his own choice, who shall at that the person to be arrested
on May 16, 1996. He also
all times be allowed to confer has committed it; and, (c) When
executed a waiver of his
privately with the person the person to be arrested is a
detention. His Sinumpaang
arrested, detained or under prisoner who has escaped from
Salaysay was done with the custodial investigation. If such penal establishment or place
assistance of Ex-Judge person cannot afford the where he is serving final
Talavera. 39
services of his own counsel, he judgment or temporarily
must be provided with a confined while his case is
A further perusal of the transcript competent and independent pending, or has escaped while
reveals that during the encounter at counsel by the investigating being transferred from one
Brgy. Dicarma, del Rosario was officer. confinement to another.
handcuffed by the police because
allegedly they had already gathered
From the foregoing, it is clear that del Rosario It must be recalled that del Rosario was arrested
enough evidence against him and they
was deprived of his rights during custodial by SPO4 De Leon during the police raid at the
place of "Jun" Marquez at Brgy. Dicarma on 14 the driver of the getaway tricycle only during the
May 1996. In People vs. Sucro 44 we held that custodial investigation.
when a police officer sees the offense, although
at a distance, or hears the disturbances created However, the conspicuous illegality of del
thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene Rosario's arrest cannot affect the jurisdiction of
thereof, he may effect an arrest without a the court a quo because even in instances not
warrant on the basis of Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a
113, since the offense is deemed committed in jurisdictional defect and any objection thereto is
his presence or within his view. In essence, Sec. waived when the person arrested submits to
5, par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused arraignment without any objection, as in this
be caught in flagrante delicto or caught case. 46
immediately after the consummation of the act.
The arrest of del Rosario is obviously outside
A transgression of the law has occurred.
the purview of the aforequoted rule since he was Unfortunately, an innocent person lost her life
arrested on the day following the commission of and property in the process. Someone therefore
the robbery with homicide.
must be held accountable, but it will not be
accused Joselito del Rosario; we must acquit
On the other hand, Sec. 5, par. (b), Rule 113, him. Like victim Virginia Bernas, he too was a
necessitates two (2) stringent requirements hapless victim who was forcibly used by other
before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) persons with nefarious designs to perpetrate a
an offense has just been committed; and, (2) the dastardly act. Del Rosario's defense of
person making the arrest has personal "irresistible force" has been substantiated by
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to clear and convincing evidence. On the other
be arrested had committed it. Hence, there must hand, conspiracy between him and his co-
be a large measure of immediacy between the accused was not proved beyond a whimper of a
time the offense was committed and the time of doubt by the prosecution, thus clearing del
the arrest, and if there was an appreciable lapse Rosario of any complicity in the crime charged.
of time between the arrest and the commission
of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional
secured. Aside from the sense of immediacy, it Trial Court of Cabanatuan City convicting
is also mandatory that the person making the accused JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO Y
arrest must have personal knowledge of certain
PASCUAL of Robbery with Homicide and
facts indicating that the person to be taken into
sentencing him to death, is REVISED and SET
custody has committed the crime. 45 Again, the
ASIDE, and the accused is ACQUITTED of the
arrest of del Rosario does not comply with these
crime charged. His immediate RELEASE from
requirements since, as earlier explained, the confinement is ordered unless held for some
arrest came a day after the consummation of the other lawful cause. In this regard, the Director of
crime and not immediately thereafter. As such,
Prisons is directed to report to the Court his
the crime had not been "just committed" at the
compliance herewith within five (5) days from
time the accused was arrested. Likewise, the receipt hereof.1âwphi1.nêt
arresting officers had no personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested
had committed the offense since they were not SO ORDERED.
present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the
crime, and they became aware of his identity as