Hot pursuit

THE KILLING of John Matthew Salilig allegedly at the hands of fraternity members at Adamson University deserves utmost condemnation.

The crime must be investigated fully, diligently, and those probably guilty of committing it prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Salilig’s body was unearthed from a shallow grave in Imus, Cavite a week ago. The autopsy showed the infliction of severe blunt force in the lower extremities.

***      

Four days later the master initiator of the fraternity underwent inquest proceedings before the Department of Justice.

An inquest implies that the person was arrested without a warrant of arrest. The public prosecutor conducts a summary hearing to determine whether the person arrested should be detained further until the case is brought to a judge for trial.

Six other members of the fraternity had previously undergone inquest proceedings before the prosecutor.

***

Generally, a person can only be arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by a judge. No one may be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

However, an arrest can also be valid without a warrant of arrest.

The Supreme Court has summarized instances when warrantless arrests may be made:

First, an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto;

second, an arrest of a suspect where, based on the personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed;

and third, an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody.

***      

The second item in that enumeration is also known as a “hot pursuit” arrest.

Note that this type of warrantless arrest requires that the crime “had just been committed.” According to jurisprudence, there must be no substantial lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime.

This is called the element of “immediacy,” meaning that the pieces of evidence gathered by the police must be fresh and not contaminated by the corrupting effects of time.

To illustrate, the Supreme Court invalidated the arrest of some of the suspects in the killing of Dennis Venturina in 1994 because the attempt to arrest was made by the National Bureau of Investigation three days after the commission of the crime.

***      

In short, a warrant of arrest must be secured if an appreciable amount of time has passed since the commission of the offense.

This does not mean that the suspects are off the hook. It only means that a regular, exhaustive investigation must be undertaken to gather evidence for the appreciation of the judge who will evaluate if they are sufficient for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

***      

Were these principles applied when police elements arrested the suspects in Salilig’s killing?

Students of criminal procedure might be minded to study the situation.

Salilig was reported missing last February 18 – presumably the same day the crime was committed. The alleged master initiator was arrested and subjected to inquest a full week later.

***

In a case decided last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the police failed the test of immediacy when they made “hot pursuit” operations eleven hours after the crime was reported.

It was observed that investigation and verification proceedings were already conducted – with enough information to secure the warrants against the suspects./PN

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here