LIM V. FELIX G.R. Nos.
94054-57 February 19, 1991
FACTS:
l Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr., together with his security escorts were attacked and killed by
a lone assassin at the airport vicinity in Masbate.
l Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. survived the assassination
plot, although, he himself suffered a gunshot wound.
l Herein petitioners were alleged to be behind the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder
in connection with the airport incident.
l After conducting the preliminary investigation, the court issued an order finding probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of herein petitioners.
l In the same Order, the court ordered the arrest of the petitioners and recommended the amount
of P200,000.00 as bail for the provisional liberty of each of the accused.
l Respondent Acting Fiscal Antonio C. Alfane was designated to review the case containing 261
pages.
l Fiscal Alfane issued a Resolution which affirmed the finding of a prima facie case against the
petitioners but differed in the designation of the crime in that the ruled that ". . . all of the
accused should not only be charged with Multiple Murder With Frustrated Murder" but for a
case of MURDER for each of the killing of the four victims and a physical injuries case for
inflicting gunshot wound on the buttocks of Dante Siblante."
l MR’s of the petitioner’s Lim was also denied.
l Fiscal Alfane filed with the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, four (4) separate information of
murder against the twelve (12) accused with a recommendation of no bail.
l Petitioners Vicente Lim, Sr. and Susana Lim filed with us a verified petition for change of venue
and was granted to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (from Masbate to Makati RTC)
l The cases were raffled to Branch 56 presided by respondent Judge Nemesio S. Felix.
l Petitioners questioned the validity of the warrant of arrest because it was not personally
determined by the judge as he relied solely on the certification or recommendation of a
prosecutor that a probable cause exists.
l RTC dismissed their petition upholding the validity of the arrest warrants.
ISSUE:
WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecution's
certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists.
HELD:
NO. If a Judge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case where all the
records of the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not personally determined probable
cause. The determination is made by the Provincial Prosecutor. The constitutional requirement
has not been satisfied. The Judge commits a grave abuse of discretion.
The records of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Court of Masbate and
reviewed by the respondent Fiscal were still in Masbate when the respondent Fiscal issued the
warrants of arrest against the petitioners. There was no basis for the respondent Judge to make
his own personal determination regarding the existence of a probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. He could not possibly have known what
transpired in Masbate as he had nothing but a certification. Significantly, the respondent Judge
denied the petitioners' motion for the transmittal of the records on the ground that the mere
certification and recommendation of the respondent Fiscal that a probable cause exists is
sufficient for him to issue a warrant of arrest.
Hence, the Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification and investigation report
whenever necessary. He should call for the complainant and witnesses themselves to answer
the court's probing questions when the circumstances of the case so require.
Petition granted.
People of the Philippines vs Ramon Solomon
G.R. No. 246579 – Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure – Rule 113; Arrest – Valid Warrantless
Arrest; Hot Pursuit – Personal Knowledge May Be Obtained by Viewing a Security Footage
Ramon Solomon robbed a grocery store and the incident was caught by a closed circuit TV
camera (CCTV). The grocery attendant called the police. The police viewed the CCTV footage
and was able to determine the direction to which Solomon went. The police likewise asked
around until they were able to discover the identity of Solomon including his address. Based on
the information they gathered, the police was able to go to Solomon’s house before he could.
When the police saw Solomon arriving home, they arrested him right there and then.
Thereafter, they frisked his person and was able to recover from him an unlicensed firearm.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid warrantless arrest.
HELD: Yes. The police may not have actually witnessed the happening of the crime real time as
they merely responded to a report. However, by viewing the CCTV footage, they have acquired
personal knowledge of the commission of a crime and that the person recorded in the CCTV has
committed it. Upon conducting the immediate operation, they were able to identify Solomon
and caused his immediate arrest. The circumstances in this case show that the police officers
acquired personal knowledge that a crime had just been committed and an element of
immediacy was present in effecting the arrest. Thus, the elements of a valid hot pursuit
warrantless arrest were present. There was a continuous and unbroken pursuit.
