Webb vs De Leon GR

121234 23
August 1995
11WednesdayMAR 2015
POSTED BY RACHEL CHAN IN CASE
DIGESTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
LEAVE A COMMENT
Facts: Hubert Webb was one of the accused in the
high-profile case Vizconde massacre. Preliminary
investigation was provided by NBI and the case
was raffled to Judge Zosimo Escano who inhibited
himself from the case for being employed with NBI
before. His pair Judge Escano issued warrant of
arrest to defendants. The case was re-raffled to
Branch 274, presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino
who issued new warrants of arrest. Webb and the
others voluntarily surrendered. They files before
the court petition of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus. They contend that (1) respondent
Judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abused their
discretion when they failed to conduct a
preliminary examination before issuing warrants of
arrest against them: (2) the DOJ Panel likewise
gravely abused its discretion in holding that there is
probable cause to charge them with the crime of
rape with homicide; (3) the DOJ Panel denied them
their constitutional right to due process during their
preliminary investigation; and (4) the DOJ Panel
unlawfully intruded into judicial prerogative when
it failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the Information
as an accused.

publicity. In the case at bar, we find nothing in the

records that will prove that the tone and content, of
the publicity that attended the investigation of
petitioners fatally infected the fairness and
impartiality of the DOJ Panel. Petitioners cannot
just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on
the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these are
basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. To be
sure, the DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant
Chief State Prosecutor and Senior State
Prosecutors. Their long experience in criminal
investigation is a factor to consider in determining
whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg
lights of publicity. Indeed, their 26-page Resolution
carries no indubitable indicia of bias for it does not
appear that they considered any extra-record
evidence except evidence properly adduced by the
parties. The length of time the investigation was
conducted despite its summary nature and the
generosity with which they accommodated the
discovery motions of petitioners speak well of their
fairness. At no instance, we note, did petitioners
seek the disqualification of any member of the DOJ
Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their
bombardment of prejudicial publicity.

344 Sesbreno v CA
G.R. No. 160689, March 26, 2014
TOPIC: Human Relations
PONENTE: VELASCO, JR., J.
AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS: (chronological order)

Issue: Whether or not the attendant publicity
deprived Webb and the others of their right to fair
trial?

Decision: Petition dismissed. to warrant a finding

of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and
proof that the judges have been unduly influenced,
not simply that they might be, by the barrage of

VECO was a public utility corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the Philippines.
VECO engaged in the sale and distribution of
electricity within Metropolitan Cebu. Sesbreo was
one of VECOs customers under the metered
service contract they had entered into on March 2,
1982.

The only important facts that needs to be discussed

has to do with an incident that occurred at around
4:00 oclock in the afternoon of May 11, 1989. On
that day, the Violation of Contracts (VOC) Team
respondetns conducted a routine inspection of the
houses at La Paloma Village, Labangon, Cebu City,
including that of plaintiff-appellant Sesbreo, for
illegal connections, meter tampering, seals, conduit
pipes, jumpers, wiring connections, and meter
installations. After Bebe Baledio, plaintiff-appellant
Sesbreos maid, unlocked the gate, they inspected
the electric meter and found that it had been turned
upside down. Defendant-appellant Arcilla took
photographs of the upturned electric meter. With
Chuchie Garcia, Peter Sesbreo and one of the
maids present, they removed said meter and
replaced it with a new one. At that time, plaintiffappellant Sesbreo was in his office and no one
called to inform him of the inspection. The VOC
Team then asked for and received Chuchie Garcias
permission to enter the house itself to examine the
kind and number of appliances and light fixtures in
the household and determine its electrical load.
Afterwards, Chuchie Garcia signed the Inspection
Division Report, which showed the condition of the
electric meter on May 11, 1989 when the VOC
Team inspected it, with notice that it would be
subjected to a laboratory test. She also signed a
Load Survey Sheet that showed the electrical load
of plaintiff-appellant Sesbreo.

Sesbreos now contend that the inspection of his

residence by the VOC team was an unreasonable
search for being carried out without a warrant and
for being allegedly done with malice or bad faith.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not Sesbreo entitled to

recover damages for abuse of rights?

HELD: No. Sesbreo did not establish his claim

for damages if the respondents were not guilty of
abuse of rights. To stress, the concept of abuse of
rights prescribes that a person should not use his
right unjustly or in bad faith; otherwise, he may be
liable to another who suffers injury. The rationale
for the concept is to present some basic principles
to be followed for the rightful relationship between
human beings and the stability of social order.21
Moreover, according to a commentator,22 "the
exercise of right ends when the right disappears,
and it disappears when it is abused, especially to
the prejudice of others[;] [i]t cannot be said that a
person exercises a right when he unnecessarily
prejudices another." Article 19 of the Civil Code23
sets the standards to be observed in the exercise of
ones rights and in the performance of ones duties,
namely: (a) to act with justice; (b) to give everyone
his due; and (c) to observe honesty and good faith.
The law thereby recognizes the primordial
limitation on all rights that in the exercise of the
rights, the standards under Article 19 must be
observed.24

RATIO:

The constitutional guaranty against unlawful

searches and seizures is intended as a restraint
against the Government and its agents tasked with
law enforcement. It is to be invoked only to ensure
freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable exercise
of State power. The Court has made this clear in its
pronouncements, including that made in People v.
Marti,17 viz:

If the search is made upon the request of law

enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured
if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However,
if the search is made at the behest or initiative of
the proprietor of a private establishment for its own
and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and
without the intervention of police authorities, the
right against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be invoked for only the act of private

individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In

sum, the protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed
by private individuals so as to bring it within the
ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
government.18

It is worth noting that the VOC inspectors decided

to enter the main premises only after finding the
meter of Sesbreo turned upside down, hanging
and its disc not rotating. Their doing so would
enable them to determine the unbilled electricity
consumed by his household. The circumstances
justified their decision, and their inspection of the
main premises was a continuation of the authorized
entry. There was no question then that their ability
to determine the unbilled electricity called for them
to see for themselves the usage of electricity inside.
Not being agents of the State, they did not have to
first obtain a search warrant to do so.

Balichas presence participation in the entry did not

make the inspection a search by an agent of the
State within the ambit of the guaranty. As already
mentioned, Balicha was part of the team by virtue
of his mission order authorizing him to assist and
escort the team during its routine inspection.19
Consequently, the entry into the main premises of
the house by the VOC team did not constitute a
violation of the guaranty.

Our holding could be different had Sesbreo

persuasively demonstrated the intervention of

malice or bad faith on the part of Constantino and

Arcilla during their inspection of the main
premises, or any excessiveness committed by them
in the course of the inspection. But Sesbreo did
not. On the other hand, the CA correctly observed
that the inspection did not zero in on Sesbreos
residence because the other houses within the area
were similarly subjected to the routine
inspection.20 This, we think, eliminated any notion
of malice or bad faith.

Clearly, Sesbreo did not establish his claim for

damages if the respondents were not guilty of abuse
of rights. To stress, the concept of abuse of rights
prescribes that a person should not use his right
unjustly or in bad faith; otherwise, he may be liable
to another who suffers injury. The rationale for the
concept is to present some basic principles to be
followed for the rightful relationship between
human beings and the stability of social order.21
Moreover, according to a commentator,22 "the
exercise of right ends when the right disappears,
and it disappears when it is abused, especially to
the prejudice of others[;] [i]t cannot be said that a
person exercises a right when he unnecessarily
prejudices another." Article 19 of the Civil Code23
sets the standards to be observed in the exercise of
ones rights and in the performance of ones duties,
namely: (a) to act with justice; (b) to give everyone
his due; and (c) to observe honesty and good faith.
The law thereby recognizes the primordial
limitation on all rights that in the exercise of the
rights, the standards under Article 19 must be
observed.24

Although the act is not illegal, liability for damages

may arise should there be an abuse of rights, like
when the act is performed without prudence or in
bad faith. In order that liability may attach under
the concept of abuse of rights, the following
elements must be present, to wit: (a) the existence
of a legal right or duty, (b) which is exercised in

bad faith, and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing

or injuring another.25 There is no hard and fast rule
that can be applied to ascertain whether or not the
principle of abuse of rights is to be invoked. The
resolution of the issue depends on the
circumstances of each case.

Case Digest: Ocampo vs. Abando

(G.R. No. 176830, February
11, 2014)
G.R. No. 176830 : February 11, 2014
SATURNINO C. OCAMPO,Petitioner,v. HON.
EPHREM S. ABANDO, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Hilongos, Leyte, Branch 18, CESAR M.
MERIN, in. his capacity as Approving
Prosecutor and Officer-in-Charge, ROSULO U.
VIVERO, in his capacity as Investigating
Prosecutor, RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his
capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Justice,Respondents.
SERENO,C.J.:
FACTS:
On 26 August 2006, a mass grave was discovered
by elements of the 43rd Infantry Brigade of the
Philippine Army at Sitio Sapang Daco, Barangay
Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte.1The mass grave
contained skeletal remains of 67 individuals
believed to be victims of "Operation Venereal
Disease" (Operation VD) launched by members of
the Communist Party of the Philippines/New
Peoples Army/National Democratic Front of the
Philippines (CPP/NPA/NDFP) to purge their ranks
of suspected military informers.
P C/Insp. Almaden of the (PNP) Regional Office 8
and Staff Judge Advocate Captain Allan Tiu (Army
Captain Tiu) of the 8th Infantry Division of the
Philippine Army sent 12 undated letters to the
Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte through Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Rosulo U. Vivero (Prosecutor
Vivero).The letters requested appropriate legal
action on 12 complaint-affidavits attached
therewith accusing 71 named members of the
Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples
Army/National Democratic Front of the Philippines
(CPP/NPA/NDFP) of murder, including petitioners
herein along with several other unnamed members.
Also attached to the letters were the affidavits of
Zacarias Piedad,Leonardo C. Tanaid, Floro M.

Tanaid, Numeriano Beringuel, Glecerio Roluna and

Veronica P. Tabara. They narrated that they were
former members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.According
to them, Operation VD was ordered in 1985 by the
CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee.Allegedly,
petitioners Saturnino C. Ocampo
(Ocampo),Randall B. Echanis (Echanis),Rafael G.
Baylosis (Baylosis),and Vicente P. Ladlad
(Ladlad)were then members of the Central
Committee.
From 1985 to 1992, at least 100 people had been
abducted, hog-tied, tortured and executed by
members of the CPP/NPA/NDF pursuant to
Operation VD.
On the basis of the 12 letters and their attachments,
Prosecutor Vivero issued a subpoena requiring,
among others, petitioners to submit their counteraffidavits and those of their witnesses.Petitioner
Ocampo submitted his counter-affidavit.Petitioners
Echanisand Baylosis did not file counter-affidavits
because they were allegedly not served the copy of
the complaint and the attached documents or
evidence. Counsel of petitioner Ladlad made a
formal entry of appearance on 8 December 2006
during the preliminary investigation. However,
petitioner Ladlad did not file a counter-affidavit
because he was allegedly not served a subpoena.
In a Resolution, Prosecutor Vivero recommended
the filing of an Information for 15 counts of
multiple murder against 54 named members of the
CPP/NPA/NDFP, including petitioners herein
Prosecutor Vivero also recommended that Zacarias
Piedad, Leonardo Tanaid, Numeriano Beringuel
and Glecerio Roluna be dropped as respondents and
utilized as state witnesses, as their testimonies were
vital to the success of the prosecution.
The Information was filed before the (RTC) of
Hilongos, Leyte, Branch 18 (RTC Hilongos, Leyte)
presided by Judge Ephrem S. Abando (Judge
Abando).
On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order
finding probable cause "in the commission by all
mentioned accused of the crime charged." He

ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against

them with no recommended bail for their
temporary liberty.
On 16 March 2007, petitioner Ocampo filed a
special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking the
annulment of the 6 March 2007 Order of Judge
Abando and the Resolution of Prosecutor
Vivero.The petition prayed for the unconditional
release of petitioner Ocampo from PNP custody, as
well as the issuance of a temporary restraining
order/ writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the
conduct of further proceedings during the pendency
of the petition.

in the amount ofP100,000, subject to the condition

that their temporary release shall be limited to the
period of their actual participation in the peace
negotiations
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioners were denied due
process during preliminary investigation and in
the issuance of the warrant of arrest;
2. Whether the murder charges against
petitioners should be dismissed under the
political offense doctrine.
HELD: The petition was denied.

Petitioner Ocampo argued that a case for rebellion

against him and 44 others (including petitioners
Echanis and Baylosisand Ladlad) was then pending
before the RTC Makati, Branch 150 (RTC
Makati).Putting forward the political offense
doctrine, petitioner Ocampo argues that common
crimes, such as murder in this case, are already
absorbed by the crime of rebellion when committed
as a necessary means, in connection with and in
furtherance of rebellion.

POLITICAL LAW Due process

While the proceedings were suspended, petitioner

Echanis was arrested by virtue of the warrant of
arrest issued by Judge Abando. On 1 February
2008, petitioners Echanis and Baylosis filed a
Motion for Judicial Reinvestigation/ Determination
of Probable Cause with Prayer to Dismiss the Case
Outright and Alternative Prayer to Recall/ Suspend
Service of Warrant.

Majority of the respondents did not submit their

counter-affidavits because they could no longer be
found in their last known address, per return of the
subpoenas. On the other hand, Saturnino Ocampo
@ Satur, Fides Lim, Maureen Palejaro and Ruben
Manatad submitted their Counter-Affidavits.
However, Vicente Ladlad and Jasmin Jerusalem
failed to submit the required Counter Affidavits in
spite entry of appearance by their respective
counsels.

Judge Abando issued an Order denying the

motion.Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis filed a
Motion for Reconsideration but before being able
to rule thereon, Judge Abando issued an Order
transmitting the records of Criminal Case to the
Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Manila.
Petitioner Ladlad and Baylosis filed an Urgent
Motion to Fix Bail and a Motion to Allow
Petitioner to Post Bail respectively.The OSG
interposed no objection to the grant of aP100,000
cash bail to them. The Court granted the motions of
petitioners Ladlad and Baylosis and fixed their bail

A. Preliminary Investigation
"The essence of due process is reasonable
opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in
support of one's defense." What is proscribed is
lack of opportunity to be heard. Thus, one who has
been afforded a chance to present ones own side of
the story cannot claim denial of due process.

Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court,

allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint
based on the evidence before him if a respondent
could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to
reach a respondent were made, and he was given an
opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the
preliminary investigation remains valid.
In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were
undertaken to serve subpoenas on the named
respondents at their last known addresses. This is

sufficient for due process. It was only because a

majority of them could no longer be found at their
last known addresses that they were not served
copies of the complaint and the attached documents
or evidence.
Petitioner Ladlad, through his counsel, had every
opportunity to secure copies of the complaint after
his counsels formal entry of appearance and,
thereafter, to participate fully in the preliminary
investigation. Instead, he refused to participate.
Neither can we uphold petitioner Ocampos
contention that he was denied the right to be heard.
For him to claim that he was denied due process by
not being furnished a copy of the Supplemental
Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad would imply that the
entire case of the prosecution rested on the
Supplemental Affidavit. The OSG has asserted that
the indictment of petitioner Ocampo was based on
the collective affidavits of several other witnesses
attesting to the allegation that he was a member of
the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Committee, which had
ordered the launch of Operation VD.
B. Issuance of the Warrants of Arrest
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides
that "no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce."
Petitioner Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did
not comply with the requirements of the
Constitution in finding the existence of probable
cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against
petitioners.
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest has been defined as "such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested." Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, May
5, 1994.Although the Constitution provides that
probable cause shall be determined by the judge
after an examination under oath or an affirmation

of the complainant and the witnesses, we have

ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the
determination thereof. In fact, the judges personal
examination of the complainant and the witnesses
is not mandatory and indispensable for determining
the aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest.
It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the
prosecutors report and supporting documents
showing the existence of probable cause for the
indictment and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant
of arrest; or if, on the basis of his evaluation, he
finds no probable cause, to disregard the
prosecutor's resolution and require the submission
of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
determining its existence. Delos Santos-Reyes v.
Montesa, Jr. 317 Phil. 101
The determination of probable cause for the
issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners is
addressed to the sound discretion of Judge Abando
as the trial judge.
CRIMINAL LAW - political offense doctrine
Under the political offense doctrine, "common
crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
offense, are divested of their character as
"common" offenses and assume the political
complexion of the main crime of which they are
mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be
punished separately from the principal offense, or
complexed with the same, to justify the imposition
of a graver penalty." People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil.
515
Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by
being absorbed in the crime of rebellion.Thus,
when a killing is committed in furtherance of
rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder.
Rather, the killing assumes the political complexion
of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be
prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone.
But when the political offense doctrine is asserted
as a defense in the trial court, it becomes crucial for
the court to determine whether the act of killing
was done in furtherance of a political end, and for
the political motive of the act to be conclusively

demonstrated.
REMEDIAL LAW Amendment or Substitution
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga
Del Norte v. CA, 401 Phil 905 if during trial,
petitioners are able to show that the alleged
murders were indeed committed in furtherance of
rebellion, Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court provides the remedy of Amendment or
substitution.
Thus, if it is shown that the proper charge against
petitioners should have been simple rebellion, the
trial court shall dismiss the murder charges upon
the filing of the Information for simple rebellion, as
long as petitioners would not be placed in double
jeopardy.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook

motion for preliminary investigation.

G.R. No. 182601

CA dismissed the petition.

Pestilos vs. Generoso

Issues:
Facts:

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE

On February 20, 2005, at around 3: 15 in

VALIDLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT.

the morning, an altercation ensued between the

petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso. Atty.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE

Generoso

LAWFULLY ARRESTED WHEN THEY WERE MERELY

called

the

Central

Police

District,

Station to report the incident. Acting on this

INVITED TO THE POLICE PRECINCT.

report, the Desk Officer dispatched policemen to

go to the scene of the crime and to render

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER DENYING THE

assistance. The policemen arrived at the scene of

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS

the crime less than one hour after the alleged

VOID FOR FAILURE TO STATE THE FACTS AND THE

altercation and they saw Atty. Generoso badly

LAW UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED.

beaten. Atty. Generoso then pointed to the

petitioners as those who mauled him. This
prompted the police officers to "invite" the
petitioners to go to the Police Station for
investigation. The petitioners went with the
police officers. At the inquest proceeding, the
City

Prosecutor

found

that

the

petitioners

stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon.

Atty. Generoso fortunately survived the attack.
The petitioners were indicted for attempted
murder.
The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for
Regular Preliminary Investigation on the ground
that they had not been lawfully arrested. They
alleged that no valid warrantless arrest took
place since the police officers had no personal
knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the
crime. They also claimed that they were just
"invited" to the police station. Thus, the inquest
proceeding

was

improper,

and

regular

procedure for preliminary investigation should

have been performed pursuant to Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court.
RTC denied the motion. The court likewise
denied

the

petitioners'

motion

for

reconsideration.
The

petitioners

challenged

the

lower

court's ruling before the CA on a Rule 65 petition

for certiorari. They attributed grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, on the RTC for the denial of their

Ruling:
We find the petition unmeritorious and thus
uphold the RTC Order.
First Issue:

For purposes of resolving the issue

on the validity of the warrantless arrest
of the present petitioners, the question
to
be
resolved
is
whether
the
requirements for a valid warrantless
arrest under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
were complied with, namely: 1) has the
crime just been committed when they
were arrested? 2) did the arresting
officer have personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the petitioners
committed the crime? and 3) based on
these facts and circumstances that the
arresting officer possessed at the time of
the
petitioners'
arrest,
would
a
reasonably discreet and prudent person
believe that the attempted murder of
Atty. Generoso was committed by the
petitioners?
From a review of the records, we conclude that
the police officers had personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances upon which they had

properly determined probable cause in effecting

The term invited in the Affidavit of Arrest is

a warrantless arrest against the petitioners.

construed to mean as an authoritative command.

The arresting officers went to the scene of

Third Issue:

the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso

of

his

alleged

mauling;

the

police

officers

The RTC, in its Order dismissing the

responded to the scene of the crime less than

motion, clearly states that the Court is not

one (1) hour after the alleged mauling; the

persuaded by the evidentiary nature of the

alleged crime transpired in a community where

allegations in the said motion of the accused.

Atty. Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty.

Aside from lack of clear and convincing proof, the

Generoso positively identified the petitioners as

Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion on

those responsible for his mauling and, notably,

the matter, is legally bound to pursue and hereby

the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost in

gives preference to the speedy disposition of the

the same neighborhood; more importantly, when

case."

the petitioners were confronted by the arresting

officers, they did not deny their participation in

We do not see any taint of impropriety or

the incident with Atty. Generoso, although they

grave abuse of discretion in this Order. The RTC,

narrated a different version of what transpired.

in resolving the motion, is not required to state

all the facts found in the record of the case.

With these facts and circumstances that

Detailed

evidentiary

matters,

as

the

RTC

the police officers gathered and which they have

decreed, is best reserved for the full-blown trial

personally observed less than one hour from the

of the case, not in the preliminary incidents

time that they have arrived at the scene of the

leading up to the trial.

crime until the time of the arrest of the

petitioners, we deem it reasonable to conclude
that the police officers had personal knowledge
of

facts

or

circumstances

petitioners'

warrantless

circumstances

were

well

justifying
arrests.

within

the
These

the

police

officers' observation, perception and evaluation

at the time of the arrest. These circumstances
qualify

as

the

police

officers'

personal

observation, which are within their personal

knowledge,

prompting

them

to

make

the

crime

just

warrantless arrests.
Personal

knowledge

of

committed under the terms of the above-cited

provision, does not require actual presence at
the scene while a crime was being committed; it
is

enough

that

evidence

of

the

recent

commission of the crime is patent (as in this

case) and the police officer has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances, that the person to be arrested
has recently committed the crime.
Second Issue: