PEOPLE VS GERENTE

TOPIC: HOT PURSUIT

FACTS:
1. Gabriel Gerente was found guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and Murder
by the Lower Court
2. The Valenzuela Police Station received a report about a mauling incident. The witness
Edna said that she overheard Gerente and his 2 co-conspirators, while they were
drinking liquor and smoking marijuana, talking about their intention in killing Clarito
Blace. Edna also witnessed the killing on the same day. Clarito was struck by a piece of
wood in the head and when he fell, a hollow block was dropped on his head. The 3
men dragged Clarito’s body behind the house of Gerente.
3. The Police was informed by the hospital officials that Clarito died on arrival. The cause
of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object.
4. Right away, the policemen proceeded to the place where to incident happened.
5. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches
of marijuana. They were informed by witness Edna that she saw the killing and she
pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito.
6. The policemen proceeded to the house of Gerente who was then sleeping. They told
him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. They
frisked Gerente and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves
wrapped in cigarette foil which turned out to be Marijuana.

ISSUE: Whether or not admitting the marijuana leaves as evidence seized from him in the
course of a warrantless arrest by the police officers is invalid and in violation of his
constitutional right not to be subjected to illegal search and seizure.

HELD: No. The search of appellant's person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves in his
possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest.

Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide:

'Section 5. Arrest without warrant: when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant arrest a person;
"(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (IN FLAGRANTI
DELICTO)
"(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal
knowIedge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
x x x. (DOCTRINE OF HOT PURSUIT)
The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions
had killed Clarito. They saw Clarito dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of
the crime, they found the instruments of death which the killers had used to bludgeon him to
death. The eyewitness reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor,
Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal
knowledge of the violent death of Clarito and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others
had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed
his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions
did.

The search conducted on Gerente's person was likewise lawful because it was made as an
incident to a valid arrest. The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a
permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person
who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.
The individual being arrested may be frisked for concealed weapons that may be used against
the arresting officer and all unlawful articles found in his person, or within his immediate
control may be seized.