Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu vs.

Ombudsman and Dizon

GR 131492 Sep 29, 2000
Obstruction and Illegal Search
FACTS:
Venturina a member of Sigma Rho of UP was killed in a fight between Sigma Rho and Scintilla
Juris.
Posadas(Chancellor of UP) asked the Director of NBI to assist in determining the offender.
Pursuant to the request Dizon(Chief of Special Operations) and his men went to UP and on the
basis of 2 positive identification by 2 alleged eyewitness.
Dizon attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag but was not able to do so due to the Objection of
Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu, Bentain, Atty. Villamor on the ground that the NBI did not have
any warrant of arrests.
Dizon filed a complaint in the Office of the Special Prosecutor(OSP) against Posadas, Lambino,
Torres-Yu, Bentain, Atty. Villamor for violation of PD 1829 for unlawfully obstructing the
apprehension and prosecution of Taparan and Narag.
OSP recommended the dismissal of the case but the Office of the Ombudsman directed the
Special prosecutor to proceed.
Posadas contends not liable under PD 1829 since he claims that it does not cover a warrantless
arrest on mere suspicion.
Issue:
1. W/N the attempted warrantless arrest by the NBI is valid.
2. W/N there was probable cause for prosecuting Posadas for violation of PD 1829.
HELD:
1. No,
Rule 113 Sec 5 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure enumerates the valid grounds for valid
warrantless arrest.1 NBI claims that they fall under par. b that they had personal knowledge by
virtue of their investigations which indicated that Taparan and Narag. That Since NBI tried to
arrest Taparan and Narag four days after the commission of the crime they had no personal
knowledge of any facts that indicates that Taparan and Narag are the perpetrators. Also the
Agents of NBI was not near the scene of the Crime when Venturina was killed.

1 Rule 113, 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure:(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

2. NO,
In order for a person to be liable for violation of PD 1829 there must be either a warrant of arrest
or there is a valid warrantless arrest. The absence of an arrest warrant, the absence of knowledge
or reasonable ground on the part of Posadas to believe that the students had committed a crime,
the absence of any law punishing refusal to attend an investigation at the NBI, all show that there
is no sufficient ground to charge the accused with Obstruction of Justice.
That Posadas had a right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and Narag because their attempted
arrest was illegal.

NOTE:
Office of the Ombudsman claims that Posadas liable since due to his intervention, Taparan and
Narag was able to escape.
SEC. 1. The-penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000
to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or wilfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
(c)harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable
ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to
prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction;