Practice question
An officer personally sees an imprisonable street assault and arrests the assailant immediately. In another incident, an officer arrests a stranger solely because an unsupported rumor accuses him of an offense committed several months earlier; no other exception applies. Which distinction is correct?
- Both arrests are justified solely because the officer suspects guilt
- Neither arrest can ever be valid without a warrant
- The second arrest is necessarily valid hot pursuit because the offense is serious
- The first can satisfy Section 5(a); the second lacks Section 5(b)'s just-committed and personal-knowledge requirements on the stated facts
- The first is valid only if the assailant consents
Legal references
- Rule 113, Section 5; Patotoy v. People, G.R. No. 257910, March 4, 2025, main decision.
- Reviewed primary authority, Rule 113, Section 5: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- Reviewed primary authority, Main decision, overt acts and fine-only distinction: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/mar2025/gr_257910_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.