MARVIN Miranda is among the persons currently held in detention for the slaying of Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo on March 4, this year.
Miranda was arrested on March 31 by a team composed of members of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
The arrest was made in Barbaza, Antique, which is hundreds of kilometers away from the scene of the crime.
***
Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla had earlier announced that Miranda is a co-mastermind of Rep. Arnolfo Teves in the assassination of Gov. Degamo.
A longtime aide of Teves, Miranda was supposedly responsible for gathering manpower and firepower for the brassy attack that resulted in the death of several other people.
Was it legal for the NBI and other law enforcement agencies to arrest Miranda without a warrant of arrest almost a month after the commission of the crime?
***
Conchita Miranda has filed a habeas corpus petition with the Supreme Court to seek the release of her son and suppress evidence that may have been gathered against him after what she calls an “illegal arrest.”
Remulla had earlier claimed that Miranda’s arrest was consequent to a hot pursuit operation, implying that it was therefore a valid warrantless arrest. A hot pursuit is accepted as an exception to the rule that a warrant of arrest is necessary before anyone may be apprehended for the commission of a crime.
Does an arrest made more than 20 after the crime still qualify as “hot pursuit?”
Was the NBI acting within the bounds of the law when they arrested Miranda without a warrant of arrest issued by a judge?
***
A police officer may lawfully effect a warrantless arrest when, based on his personal knowledge, there is probable cause that the suspect is the perpetrator of the crime which “had just been committed.”
This means, according to Supreme Court rulings, that there must be no appreciable length of time between the arrest and the commission of the offense.
How long is this “appreciable length of time?”
***
In a recent case (Agravante vs. People, July 11, 2022), the Supreme Court invalidated a warrantless arrest that was effected “11 hours from the report of the crime.” The required element of immediacy was said to be wanting.
By the time the police officers arrested the alleged perpetrator investigation and validation procedures had already been conducted and by then they were armed with enough information by which to apply for a warrant of arrest.
By this time the police could not possibly have complied with the element of immediacy. An appreciable length of time had already lapsed.
***
Can the NBI justify Miranda’s warrantless arrest when it presents its defense in the Supreme Court? Would they have been better off had they requested a warrant of arrest based on the information offered by other persons of interest in the investigation?
The “hot pursuit” angle in police arrest procedures is touted to be among the most abused exceptions here in our country. It is hoped that this controversial case affords the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify these rules once and for all for the benefit of our law enforcement agents./PN
