G.R. No. 131492 . September 29, 2000.
ROGER POSADAS, ROSARIO TORRES-YU, and MARICHU LAMBINO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, and ORLANDO V. DIZON, respondents.

FACTS

Following the killing of a University of the Philippines (U.P.) student in a fraternity rumble, U.P. Chancellor Roger Posadas requested NBI assistance. On December 12, 1994, NBI agents, led by respondent Orlando Dizon, attempted to arrest two student suspects, Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag, at the U.P. Police Station without a warrant. The agents relied on the alleged positive identification by two eyewitnesses. Petitioners Posadas, Rosario Torres-Yu, and Marichu Lambino, along with the suspects’ counsel, objected to the warrantless arrest and promised to produce the students at the NBI office the next day, preventing the immediate arrest.
Subsequently, criminal charges were filed against the student suspects. Dizon then filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, charging petitioners and others with violating Presidential Decree No. 1829 for allegedly obstructing the apprehension of criminal offenders. An information was filed in the Sandiganbayan. Although the Special Prosecutor later recommended dismissal, the Ombudsman disapproved this and directed prosecution. Petitioners thus filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the NBI’s attempted warrantless arrest was valid. (2) Whether probable cause exists to prosecute petitioners for violation of P.D. No. 1829.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the attempted warrantless arrest was invalid and that no probable cause existed to prosecute petitioners. On the first issue, the Court held the arrest did not fall under any valid warrantless arrest exception under Rule 113, §5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The crime had occurred days prior, not “just been committed,” and the NBI agents’ knowledge was based merely on investigation reports and alleged witness statements, not the “personal knowledge” required by paragraph (b) of the rule. The agents did not witness the crime themselves. The Court distinguished the cited case of People v. Tonog, Jr., noting it involved a hot pursuit scenario where the arresting officer had direct personal knowledge, which was absent here.
On the second issue, the Court found no probable cause to indict petitioners. Their intervention to question the legality of the warrantless arrest and their promise to produce the suspects the following day constituted a lawful defense of constitutional rights, not criminal obstruction. The petitioners were not sureties and could not be held accountable for the NBI’s own failure to secure a warrant. The Court emphasized that enforcing the law cannot justify sacrificing constitutional rights. Since the case could be resolved on these statutory and procedural grounds, the Court declined to rule on the constitutional challenge to P.D. No. 1829. The Ombudsman was prohibited from prosecuting petitioners, and the Sandiganbayan was ordered to dismiss the information.