Good day! I am sharing to you a memorandum sent by our office to all our police stations in Region 5 clearly explaining the meaning of personal knowledge in hot pursuit according to a decision rendered by the Ombudsman relative to a case involving our personnel. This will help you a lot in understanding the meaning of hot pursuit according to the 2000 Criminal Procedure as distinguished from the old 1985 Criminal Procedure, which is already obsolete. SUBJECT : Continuing Legal Education re Meaning of Personal Knowledge under Hot Pursuit Arrest in relation to Arbitrary Detention, Perjury and Admin Cases DATE : September 1, 2014 1. Reference: Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dated November 7, 2013 received by our office on August 18, 2014 relative to the cases of arbitrary detention, perjury, grave misconduct, abuse of authority and violation of RA 6713 filed by Michael B. Bańadera against PINSP. RODOLFO B. BUBAN, PO1 Oliver M. Navarro and PO1 Olive C. Navarro, all of Bacacay Municipal Police Station, Albay. 2. The said cases were handled by the Legal Service 5 in accordance with our thrust on Project Katarungan, which is, a program for legal representation of PNP personnel facing criminal and administrative cases. Please be informed that the Office of the Ombudsman acquitted all of the respondents from the charge, as contained in its decision, copy of which is attached hereto for your easy reference. 3. As a short backgrounder, on August 26, 2012 at 10:15 in the evening, all of the respondents herein were inside the police station when a crying woman appeared before them and alleged that she was raped by man identified as Michael B. Bañadera, of legal age and resident of Brgy. Igang, Bacacay, Albay. The woman was identified as Miss X, 22 years old, single and a resident of Brgy. Rawis, Legazpi City. The incident allegedly happened on the same night prior to the reporting at around 6:30 in the evening. After the victim undergone processes at the station, the respondents went to the residence of Banadera for clarification. While they were in the residence of the Banaderas, they saw one male person who was about to jump over the fence. They arrested such person who was later indentified as Michael Bañadera and thereafter detained at the police station pending inquest. The following day, the victim was subjected for medical examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory with the following findings: Physical Injuries: 1) Abarasion, left nipple, measuring 0.5cm x 0.1. cm, 8cm from the anterior midline. Conclusion: Medical Evaluation shows clear evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen. The next day, August 28, Bañadera was brought to the Prosecution Office for inquest but was advised by the prosecutor to file the case regularly for unknown reason. As a result, Bañadera was released from their custody. Bañadera later on filed these subject cases against the respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that : 1. the arrest was illegal; and 2. respondents committed perjury when they said that he raped Miss X. 4. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed all the allegations of complainant Bañadera and said that : A. The arrest was valid and legal based on Sec. 5, par. (b) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court or hot pursuit arrest. The aforecited provision of law necessitates two stringent requirements: (1) An offense has just been committed; (2) the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested had committed it. Undoubtedly, the first requirement that the offense has just been committed was present in these cases. It must be emphasized that immediately after the incident, the victim reported the same to authorities. Respondents who believed that that the complainant (Bañadera) was the assailant based on the personal account of the victim, immediately arrested and brought him to the police station. The action of the respondents was based on the detailed narration of the victim of what had transpired on that fateful day. There is no indication whatsoever that respondents were motivated by malice or bad faith in effecting the arrest. On the second requisite, personal knowledge of facts means actual belief or reasonable ground 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, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested, coupled with good faith. Here, respondents have reasonable ground to believe that, based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances and the testimony of the victim and her witness, the person to be arrested had committed the offense. Hence, the act of the rerspondents is well within the bounds of the law. B. There is no perjury. Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of a law on material matter. In the cases at hand, it appears that the facts stated in their joint-affidavit of the respondents were derived from their own personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which resulted to the arrest of complainant. Hence, the crime of perjury was not committed. C. There are no administrative violations. Records show that respondents were performing their duties at the time of the incident. As has been oft-repeated, police officers in performing their official duties are presumed to have acted in a regular manner and the evidence to overturn such a presumption must be sufficient and convincing. In the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that respondents transgressed a rule of action in the performance of duty or that they were motivated by an evil desire when they arrested the complainant, the presumption accorded to them must be upheld. 5. In sum, the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman supported by relevant jurisprudence tells us that actual knowledge in the commission of the crime is not required in warrantless arrest under Sec. 5, par. (b) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, also known as hot pursuit arrest. What is required is that the crime has just been committed, and that reasonable ground of suspicion exits for the arrest of the suspect, coupled with good faith on the part of the apprehending police personnel. Arbitrary detention is, therefore, not to be feared even if later on inquest of the suspect failed. Niether should we fear perjury for there is no perjury if our statements or conclusions are purely anchored on investigation which we have actual personal knowledge. We must also remember that presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is always presumed in favor of our personnel, so that in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that we transgressed a rule of action in the performance of duty or that we are motivated by an evil desire when we arresta a suspect, the presumption accorded to us will always be upheld. 6. For your guidance.
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:35:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015