Reynaldo Case

In the case at bar, as they were inside the police vehicle, the
suspect, Calawigan, attempted to escape and as the 23rd unit of
infantry battalion was on its way to the crime scene, saw the fleeing
suspect and as was able to shoot him.

As per jurisprudence in the case of People v. Doria the court

held that warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant Doria was not
unlawful and that warrantless arrest are allowed in three instances as
provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 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;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,

and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who

escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

Thus, the shooting of Calawagin qualified to be not unlawful.

In the case of Valdez v. Carpio (G.R No. 170180 Nov 23, 2007) as
testified by Rogelio Bautista, one of the tanods who were conducting their
routine patrols who arrested Aresenio Vergara Valdez, they noticed the
petitioner, lugging a bag, alight from a mini-bus. They observed that
petitioner, who appeared suspicious to them, seemed to be looking for
something. They thus approached him but the latter purportedly attempted to
run away. They chased him, put him under arrest and thereafter brought him
to the house of Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he, as
averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado to open his bag. Petitioners
bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, eighteen pieces of eggplant
and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. It was
then that petitioner was taken to the police station for further investigation.

The Court held that none of the circumstances was attendant at the
time of the arrest. (Section 5, of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court) but the court
posed (two) 2 exceptions to the said rule, to wit: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done
in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

The over act the accused, Arsenio Valdez, adequate to incite

suspicion of criminal activity to validate the warrantless arrest.
Strengthening the acts of the 23rd unit of infantry battalion in shooting the
accused without having with them a warrant of arrest to enable them to
have jurisdiction to the fleeing suspect.

According to Captain Geraldo Magayaga, Commanding Officer of the

SCAA Company of the 23IB, they reinforced the scene and secured
portion of the road, they held back from further responding in the ongoing
fire fight as it was hard to distinguish between the police operative and the
suspects since the area was very dark and only lights coming from the
responding vehicles illuminated the scene. This aggravates the crime
committed by the accused under Paragraph 6 Article 14 of the Revised
Penal Code and that the acts of the responding officers are justifiable
under Paragraph 5 Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. The officers has
no criminal liability.

No right was violated when the buy bust operation was done with due
care and in good faith. A police officer in his statement said that they did
not expect that the operation would turn out that big. Also he added, that
the suspect suddenly opened fired and hit their confidential agent in the
left side of the rib cage and they opened fire in defense.

Article 11 Justifying Circumstances. The following does not incur

criminal liability:

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of the person or

rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the
person defending be not be induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.

As applied in the case of People v. Catbagan, the court aptly held that
the means employed by the person invoking self-defense is reasonable if
equivalent to the means of attack used by the original aggressor. Whether
or not the means of self-defense is reasonable depends upon the nature or
quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and
other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who
invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the assault.

The right to remain silent and have competent counsel as it was not
clear that the arresting officer failed to inform the the person arrested of his
rights. It is stated, as narrated by Richmond Hinayon, ABS-CBN News
Anchor, during the buy bust operation, when the suspects knew that they
were about to be arrested, the suspects opened fire. Officers left with no
choice, retaliate the shooting.
Sources:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/local-news/2017/05/20/drugs-
worth-p118m-seized-butuan-city-542883

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/november2007/170180.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/191913.hm

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/28/17/drug-suspek-sa-butuan-patay-ma
tapos-makipagbarilan-sa-pulis