c.

Post-Arrest Procedure The procedure after arrest is made under paragraph a and b of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The person arrested without warrant shall be delivered to the nearest police station or jail. Then, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section of Rule 11!. "t is an important provision. This is called "#$%&ST 'R&(")"#*R+ "#,&ST"-*T".#. /ere, the complaint or information ma0 be filed b0 a prosecutor without need for a preliminar0 investigation provided an in1uest proceeding has been conducted in accordance with e2isting rules. "n the absence of an in1uest prosecutor, the offended part0 or an0 peace officer ma0 file the complaint directl0 in court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended part0 or peace officer. The filing shall be based onl0 on the affidavit of the offended part0, the police, and some witnesses. Procedure for Conducting Inquest Proceeding

Receipt of the Inquest Officer of the referral documents Arrest NOT properly effected Arrest properly effected A preliminary investigation may be conducted if requested Otherwise inquest proper shall be conducted etermination of !robable " ause

Release shall be recommended If evidence does not warrant the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the detained person shall be released otherwise a preliminary investigation shall be conducted.

If there is probable cause, information shall be filed# otherwise release shall be recommended.

"n1uest is an informal and summar0 investigation conducted b0 a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued b0 the court for the purpose of determining whether or not said persons should remain under custod0 and correspondingl0 be charged in court. "t shall be considered commenced upon receipt b0 the "n1uest .fficer from the law enforcement authorities of the complaint3referral

documents. The "n1uest .fficer shall first determine if the arrest of the detained person was made in accordance with paragraphs 4a5 and 4b5 of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1675 Rules on Criminal 'rocedure, as amended, which provide that arrests without a warrant ma0 be effected8 a5 when, in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuall0 committing, or is attempting to commit an offense9 or b5 when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the arresting officer has personal :nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. ;or this purpose, the "n1uest .fficer ma0 summaril0 e2amine the arresting officers on the circumstances surrounding the arrest or apprehension of the detained person. Should the "n1uest .fficer find that the arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules, the detained person shall be recommended to be released which must be approved b0 the Cit0 or 'rovincial 'rosecutor. "f the in1uest .fficer find that the arrest was properl0 effected, the detained person shall be as:ed if he desires to avail himself of a preliminar0 investigation and, if he does, he shall be made to e2ecute a waiver of the provisions of *rticle 1!5 of the Revised 'enal Code, as amended, with the assistance of a law0er and, in case of non<availabilit0 of a law0er, a responsible person of his choice. The investigation shall be terminated within fifteen 4155 da0s from its inception. =here the detained person does not opt for or otherwise refuses to e2ecute the re1uired waiver, proceed with the in1uest b0 e2amining the sworn the complainant and the witnesses. 'robable cause shall be determined and such e2ists, he shall forthwith prepare the corresponding complaint or information with the recommendation that the same be filed in court. The complaint or information shall indicate the offense committed and the amount of bail recommended, if bailable. Thereafter, the record of the case, together with the prepared complaint or information, shall be forwarded to the Cit0 or 'rovincial 'rosecutor for appropriate action. *nd if there>s no probable cause, the recommendation of the "n1uest .fficer for the release of the arrested or detained person shall be approved b0 the Cit0 or 'rovincial 'rosecutor, and the order of release shall be served on the officer having custod0 of the said detainee.

d. Exceptions construed strictly

David et. Al. v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo et. Al., G. . !o. "#"$%& '())&*
The Constitution provides that ?the right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and sei@ure of whatever nature and for an0 purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e2cept upon probable cause to be determined personall0 b0 the judge after e2amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma0 produce, and particularl0 describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei@ed.A ,-e plain i.port of t-e language of t-e Constitution is t-at searc-es, sei/ures and arrests are nor.ally unreasona0le unless aut-ori/ed 0y a validly issued searc- +arrant or +arrant of arrest. ,-us, t-e funda.ental protection given 0y t-is provision is t-at 0et+een person and police .ust stand t-e protective aut-ority of a .agistrate clot-ed +it- po+er to issue or refuse to issue searc+arrants or +arrants of arrest. First, he was arrested without warrant9 second, the '#' operatives arrested him on the basis of '' 1B1C9 third, he was brought at Camp Daringal, $ue@on Cit0 where he was fingerprinted, photographed and boo:ed li:e a criminal suspect9 fourth, he was treated brus1uel0 b0 policemen who ?held his head and tried to push himA inside an unmar:ed car9 fifth, he was charged with ,iolation of 1atas Pa.0ansa 1ilang !o. 22) and Inciting to 3edition9 sixth, he was detained for seven 4C5 hours9 and seventh, he was eventuall0 released for insufficienc0 of evidence. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal 'rocedure provides8 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. < * peace officer or a private person ma0, without a warrant, arrest a person8 'a* =hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuall0 committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. '0* =hen an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal :nowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it9 and 2 2 2. #either of the two 4!5 e2ceptions mentioned justifies petitioner Eavid>s warrantless arrest. Euring the in1uest for the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of 1P 22), all that the arresting officers could invo:e was their observation that some rall0ists were wearing t<shirts with the invective Oust Gloria

Now and their erroneous assumption that petitioner Eavid was the leader of the rall0. Conse1uentl0, the "n1uest 'rosecutor ordered his immediate release on the ground of insufficienc0 of evidence. /e noted that petitioner Eavid was not wearing the subject t<shirt and even if he was wearing it, such fact is insufficient to charge him with i nciting to sedition. ;urther, he also stated that there is insufficient evidence for the charge of violation of 1P 22) as it was not even :nown whether petitioner Eavid was the leader of the rall0. Fut what made it doubl0 worse for petitioners Eavid et al. is that not onl0 was their right against warrantless arrest violated, but also their right to peaceabl0 assemble as stated in section G of *rticle """ of our Constitution. The0 were arrested while the0 were e2ercising their right to peaceful assembl0. The0 were not committing an0 crime, neither was there a showing of a clear and present danger that warranted the limitation of that right. *s can be gleaned from circumstances, the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of 1P 22) were mere afterthought. &ven the Solicitor -eneral, during the oral argument, failed to justif0 the arresting officers> conduct. Thus, warrantless arrest of petitioners were declared %#C.#ST"T%T".#*(.

People v. 4alde/, $)5 3C A "5) '"%%%*

Settled is the rule that no arrest, search and sei@ure can be made without a valid warrant issued b0 a competent judicial authorit0. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei@ures. "t further decrees that an0 evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for an0 purpose in an0 proceeding. The provisions serve as safeguards against wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privac0 and libert0 of a citi@en as to his person, papers and effects. The right of a person to be secure against an0 unreasonable sei@ure of his bod0 and an0 deprivation of his libert0 is a most basic and fundamental one. * statute, rule or situation which allows e2ceptions to the re1uirement of a warrant of arrest or search warrant must be strictl0 construed. "n this case, police officer )ariano was tipped off b0 a civilian HassetH that a thin "locano person with a green bag was about to transport marijuana from Fanaue, "fugao. Said information was received b0 S'.1 )ariano the ver0 same morning he was waiting for a ride in Fanaue to report for wor: in (agawe, the capital town of "fugao province. Thus, faced with such on<the< spot information, the law enforcer had to respond 1uic:l0 to the call of dut0. .bviousl0, there was not enough time to secure a search warrant considering the time involved in the process. "n fact, in view of the urgenc0 of the case, S'.1 )ariano together with the civilian IassetH proceeded immediatel0 to /ing0on, "fugao to pursue the drug traffic:er. "n /ing0on, he flagged down buses bound for Faguio Cit0 and )anila, and loo:ed for the person described b0 the

informant. The target of the pursuit was just the Hthin "locano person with a green bagH and no other. *nd so, when S'.1 )ariano inspected the bus bound for )anila, he just singled out the passenger with the green bag. &videntl0, there was definite information of the identit0 of the person engaged in transporting prohibited drugs at a particular time and place. S'.1 )ariano had alread0 an in:ling of the identit0 of the person he was loo:ing for. *s a matter of fact, no search at all was conducted on the baggages of other passengers. /ence, appellantIs claim that the arresting officer was onl0 fishing for evidence of a crime has no factual basis. S'.1 )ariano had probable cause to stop and search the buses coming from Fanaue in view of the information he got from the civilian HassetH that somebod0 having the same appearance as that of appellant and with a green bag would be transporting marijuana from Fanaue. /e li:ewise had probable cause to search appellantIs belongings since he fits the description given b0 the civilian HassetH. Since there was a valid warrantless search b0 the police officer, an0 evidence obtained during the course of said search is admissible against appellant. The appellant li:ewise asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt be0ond reasonable doubt. /e claims that when S'.1 )ariano apprehended him, he was not in possession of the green bag as the same was under the seat before him. The Court was convinced that the guilt of appellant has been proven be0ond reasonable doubt b0 the evidence on record.

People v. 1urgos "55 3C A " '"%26*

Cesar )asamlo: surrendered to the 'hilippine Constabular0 on )a0 1!, 167! stating that, he was forcibl0 recruited b0 Ruben Furgos a member of the #'*, threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused. * joint team of members of the 'C<"#' was dispatched the following da0 to arrest Ruben Furgos and the0 were able to locate and arrest him while he was plowing in his field. "nterrogation was made in the house of the accused. /e first denied possession of the firearm but later, upon further 1uestioning, the team with the wife of the accused, the latter pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground. *fter recover0 of the firearm, the accused li:ewise pointed to the subversive documents which the 'C found :ept in a stoc: pile of cogon, at a distance of three meters apart from his house. *ccused when confronted with the firearm readil0 admitted the same as issued to him b0 the team leader of sparrow unit. The lower court justified the arrest, search and sei@ure without warrant under Sec. <*, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The SC held the arrest as %#(*=;%(. ?%nder Sec. 4a5 Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal :nowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in this presence or within his view.A

There is no such personal :nowledge in this case. =hatever :nowledge was possessed b0 the arresting officers, it came in its entiret0 from the information furnished b0 Cesar )asamlo:. The location of the firearm was given b0 the appellant>s wife. *t the time he was arrested, he was not committing a crime but was plowing his field. "f an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generall0, nothing that is discovered afterwards cannot ma:e it lawful. It is not enoug- t-at t-ere is reasona0le ground to 0elieve t-at t-e person to 0e arrested -as co..itted a cri.e in a +arrantless arrest. An essential precondition is t-at a cri.e .ust -ave 0een in fact or actually -ave 0een co..itted first7 it isn8t enoug- to suspect a cri.e .ay -ave 0een co..itted. The test of reasonable ground applies onl0 to the identit0 of the perpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. Court fails to see wh0 the0 failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed the0 had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had trul0 committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. (i:ewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were un:nown.