In contrast, the NBI agents in the case at bar tried to arrest Narag and Taparan four days after

the commission of the crime. They had no personal knowledge of any fact which might indicate that the
two students were probably guilty of the crime. What they had were the supposed positive identification of
two alleged eyewitnesses, which is insufficient to justify the arrest without a warrant by the NBI (xxx)
Indeed, at the time Dennis Venturina was killed, these agents were nowhere near the scene of the crime.
When respondent Dizon and his men attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag, the latter were not
committing a crime nor doing anything that would create the suspicion that they were doing anything
illegal. On the contrary, Taparan and Narag, under the supervision of the U.P. police, were taking part in a
peace talk called to put an end to the violence on the campus. (Posadas v. Ombudsman, G.R. No.
131492. September 29, 2000)

Anent accused-appellant's third assignment of error, it might be true that accused-appellant's

warrantless arrest was not lawful. The police officers who arrested him had no personal knowledge of
facts indicating that he was the perpetrator of the crime just committed. His warrantless arrest was not
based on a personal knowledge of the police officers indicating facts that he has committed the gruesome
crime but solely on Maximo's suspicion that he was involved in the slaying of Mylene since he was seen
washing his bloodied hands in the early morning of March 26, 1994. (People v. Rondero, G.R. No.
125687. December 9, 1999)

In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off the police that a man and a woman were repacking
prohibited drugs at a certain house. The police immediately proceeded to the house of the suspects. They
walked towards the house accompanied by their informer. When they reached the house, they peeped
inside through a small window and saw a man and woman repacking marijuana. They then entered the
house, introduced themselves as police officers, confiscated the drug paraphernalia, and arrested the
suspects. This Court ruled: The manner by which accused-appellants were apprehended does not fall under any
of the above-enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants had just committed, were committing, or were about to
commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor did they
have any reasonable ground to believe that accused-appellants committed it. Third, accused-appellants were not
prisoners who have escaped from a penal establishment. (People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. December

13, 2010, citing People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754. December 22, 1999)

In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the
authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a
crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information

from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful, if an arrest without warrant is unlawful at
the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful.
The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. (People v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-68955.
September 4, 1986)

Petitioner maintains, in a nutshell, that after he was approached by the tanod and asked to show the
contents of his bag, he was simply herded without explanation and taken to the house of the barangay
captain. On their way there, it was Aratas who carried his bag. He denies ownership over the contraband
allegedly found in his bag and asserts that he saw it for the first time at the barangay captains house.
Even casting aside petitioners version and basing the resolution of this case on the general thrust of the
prosecution evidence, the unlawfulness of petitioners arrest stands out just the same. It is obvious that
based on the testimonies of the arresting barangay tanod, not one of these circumstances was obtaining
at the time petitioner was arrested. By their own admission, petitioner was not committing an offense at
the time he alighted from the bus, nor did he appear to be then committing an offense. The tanod did not
have probable cause either to justify petitioners warrantless arrest. (Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180.
November 23, 2007)

Mendoza presents as the only reason why he ordered the arrest of the Chinaman that he was acting
suspiciously. He did not say in what way he was acting suspiciously. He did not say in what way he was
acting suspiciously or what was the particular act or circumstance which aroused his curiosity. (xxx). (The)
testimony of the witness does not present any clear reason why he arrested the Chinaman. He arrested
him because, as he said, "I wanted to see if he had committed a crime." Among free men and under
constitutional and statutory guaranties of personal liberty, this furnishes no reason whatever why a person
should be arrested. We believe that the testimony of these three witnesses for the defendant, given as it
is by person whose reputation is apparently good and whose allegations have not been discredited in any
way, is strong evidence in the case and sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
(U.S. v. Hachaw, G.R. No. L-6909. February 20, 1912)

An anonymous caller tipped off PO3 Dante Salonga and PO3 Albert Carizon in the early evening of 11
September 1995 that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited drugs at a certain house in Sta.
Brigida St., Karuhatan, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. PO3 Salonga and PO3 Carizon together with SPO1
Fernando Arenas immediately proceeded to the house of the suspects and parked their car some three
hundred (300) meters away. They walked towards their quarry's lair accompanied this time by their
unnamed informer. When they reached the house they "peeped (inside) through a small window and x x x
saw one man and a woman repacking suspected marijuana." They entered the house and introduced

themselves as police officers to the occupants and thereupon confiscated the tea bags and some drug
paraphernalia. They arrested the two (2) who turned out to be the accused Zenaida Bolasa y Nakoboan
and Roberto delos Reyes. (xxx). Accused-appellant Zenaida Bolasa meanwhile asserts that the search in
her residence was likewise illegal as her arrest preceding it was illegal. Consequently, the marijuana
seized from her could not be properly used as evidence against her. She insists that the trial court should
not have given credence to the testimony of PO3 Albert Carizon as the same was hearsay. According to
her and her co-accused delos Reyes, PO3 Carizon was not among the arresting officers. As such, PO3
Carizon had no personal knowledge regarding the conduct of the arrest and search thus making his
testimony hearsay. Since the prosecution did not present the two (2) arresting officers the version of the
prosecution cannot stand on its own. (xxx). The Court held that: The manner by which accusedappellants were apprehended does not fall under any of the above-enumerated categories. Perforce,
their arrest is illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest,
accused-appellants had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime. Second, the
arresting officers had no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor did they have any
reasonable ground to believe that accused-appellants committed it. Third, accused-appellants were not
prisoners who have escaped from a penal establishment. (People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754.
December 22, 1999)