On Warrant of Arrest During the court visit, we were able to refresh our knowledge in rules on criminal procedure specifically

on the rules governing the issuance of warrant of arrest and on filing a motion to lift the said warrant. It was established during the hearing that the accused was charged with Homicide, as such a prior warrant of arrest has been issued and as to which he filed a bail bond for his temporary liberty. However, the accused failed to attend one hearing, hence, a new warrant for the arrest of the accused has been issued. onse!uently, during the said hearing the accused is re!uesting for the lifting of the warrant of arrest issued against him which on that very same day said motion was granted by the court. "ased on the foregoing facts, we were able to discuss and settle among ourselves the following rules# $irst, a warrant of arrest is a legal process issued by a competent authority directing the arrest of a person or persons upon the grounds stated therein. %nder Section 2, Article VI, 1987 Constitution, &'o warrant of arrest should issue e(cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the )udge after e(amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce*. +rgo, it is only the )udge who has the power to issue warrant of arrest based on probable cause personally determined by him. ,econd, a warrant of arrest has 'O e(piry date. It remains valid until arrest is effected or warrant is lifted -Manangan v. CFI GR No 827 ! August "!,199!# A warrant of arrest is lifted upon filing of bail with the court. %nder Rule 11$ o% t&e Revise' Rules on Cri(inal )roce'ure, bail is defined as a security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as re!uired under the conditions hereinafter specified. "ail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recogni.ance. /he accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by the )udge with whom it was filed. /hird, the failure of the accused to appear before the proper court whenever re!uired by the court or the 0ules will result to the forfeiture of the bail furnished by him or his bondsman. /his rule is in accordance with the provisions under Art . 11$, Sec. 21 o% t&e Revise' Rules on Cri(inal )roce'ure which states that &When the presence of the accused is re!uired by the court or these 0ules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If the accused fails to appear in person as re!uired, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty -123 days within which to produce their principal and to show why no )udgment should

be rendered against them for the amount of their bail.* onse!uently, upon forfeiture of the bail a warrant for the arrest of the accused shall be issued. $ourth, when a bail was forfeited due to the failure of the accused to appear during trial and as such a warrant of arrest was issued against him, the accused may file a motion to lift the warrant of arrest showing )ustifiable grounds for his non4 appearance during the hearing. In the case at bar, the accused has proven that he was not able to receive the order of hearing issued by the court re!uiring him to attend on a set date of hearing, hence, there was a good cause shown by him for his failure to attend said hearing. +rgo, the court acted within its authority when it granted the motion to lift the said warrant of arrest. $inally, it is clear among us that in criminal proceedings the court cannot dispensed with the constitutional re!uirement of procedural due process. /he court must give the accused an opportunity to be heard, as in this case, as to the merit of the motion filed by him for the lifting of the warrant of arrest. /he hearing that was conducted has shown to us that every accused are given protection by the law and the rules and as such these must be followed strictly in order to avoid miscarriage of )ustice.

-irene