Practice question
Seconds after an offense is committed, an officer arrives and personally observes facts that establish probable cause linking a particular fleeing suspect to that just-committed offense. Assume those facts and timing are legally sufficient and no other defect exists. The suspect objects solely that the officer did not personally watch the criminal act itself. Which is correct?
- Every warrantless arrest requires eyewitness observation of the offense.
- The suspect wins because Section 5(b) does not exist.
- Only a confession can ever establish Section 5(b).
- The objection confuses Section 5(a) with Section 5(b), which uses a just-committed offense and personal knowledge of probable-cause facts or circumstances.
- Any accusation, however remote, would be sufficient.
Legal references
- Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5: https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/rc/rc_110-127_2000.html Section 5(a)–(b).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.