CASE TITLE: David vs Macapagal Arroyo AUTHOR: Buera

[G.R. No. Date]: GR. 171396, May 3, 2006 NOTES:

TOPIC: Validity of Arrest
PONENTE: Sandoval-Gutierrez
FACTS:
The case is about 7 consolidated petitions for Certiorari and prohibition regarding the issuance of Presidential
Proclamation No. 1017 that commands the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent and suppress all forms of
lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion which is of the same nature as General Order No. 5
with the contention that above mentioned issuances tramples upon the freedom guaranteed by the constitution. Said
proclamation was declared February 24, 2006 as the nation celebrated the 20th anniversary of EDSA People Power I.
The government claimed that the factual basis for declaring PP 1017 was the conspiracy among some military
officers, leftist movements, NPAs and the opposition to assassinate then President Arroyo. Following this is the
announcement that all activities including rallies approved by the local government are revoked in line with the
cancellation of all programs and activities related to the commemoration of EDSA I celebration. Following this is the
declaration that warrantless arrests and take over of facilities , including the media can already be implemented.
Said declaration was followed by raids in the Daily Tribune on February 25 where they confiscated news and stories
by reporters, documents, pictures and mock ups. The raid according to the Chief of Staff is meant to show a strong
presence so the media will not dare connive with anyone who tries to bring down the government. Following this
were various arrests made including that of Congressman Crispin Beltran whose warrant showed by the police was
issued during the Martial law in 1985 for inciting to rebellion.
Among those arrested was petitioner David on February 24 who was taken without a warrant on his way to EDSA
hence this petition.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the arrest made under Presidential Proclamation 1017 is valid?
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
The court gave an overview regarding the circumstances that surrounded the arrest of David. First, he was arrested
without a warrant. He was arrested under proclamation 1017 and was brought to Camp Karingal where he was
booked as a suspect and was violently treated by the police and finally, he was charged for inciting to sedition. With
the following facts the Supreme Court stated when it is lawful to arrest someone without a warrant being: (1)when
in the presence of an arresting officer or private person, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an offense (2) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested committed the
offense.
In the case at bar, none of the exceptions existed. During the inquisition, the observation of the arresting officers that
some rallyists were wearing Oust Gloria Now t-shirts which led them to assume that David was the leader of the
rally who claimed in front of the prosecutor that he was not wearing said shirt hence he cannot be charged with
inciting to sedition. These observations were not enough to prove that David is indeed committing an offense
therefore his arrest was invalid.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):