ARRESTS

Requirements

Probable cause

Such is personally determined by judge

Such personal determination is done after examination of applicant

witnesses under oath

General rule for Bureau of Immigration is that a warrant of arrest

can only be issued if there is a final order of deportation already,
NOT for conducting an investigation
o

EXCEPTION, in Harvey v. Santiago

Santiago issued a warrant of arrest even if there was no final

order of deportation yet

BUT SC upheld this because it was established that there was

already a prior surveillance conducted (if no surveillance, no
valid)

particular place, person and items to be searched or seized

for an arrest to be valid, must be conducted pursuant to warrant of

arrest

Warrant of arrest

court process issued by the judge commanding the law

enforcement agency to arrest a particular person

For it to be valid, after complying essential requisites above

Probable cause in relation to warrant of arrest

not suspicion but more than suspicion

refers to such facts or circs as would lead a reasonably sound and

prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
the person to be arrested did the offense

such probable cause must be determined judge

o

judges and justices of the regular courts of law

Administrative bodies or officers may issue warrants of arrest, but

only in final determinations of a violation of a law as when there is
already an order of deportation or order of contempt (Morino v.
Vivo)

Is it mandatory for the judge to examine personally?

No need to examine personally before the judge can issue a

warrant of arrest (web v. de leon and Makasiar v. Soliven)

Because normally a criminal case first filed with city or provincial

prosecution office wherein the latter would recommend or not filing
of the information based on the finding of any probable cause

Once info filed in court, there is already a preliminary determination

of probable cause by the prosecution so all that the judge must do
is for him to evaluate the complaint and affidavits
o

Unlike in search warrant, application must be with judge

himself and no preliminary investigation conducted

Judge is not obligated to accept the views of the Prosecutor, he

must come up with his own determination of the probable cause
before a warrant of arrest is issued by the judge
o

Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or

information, the judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.

In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause,

the judge may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the
issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days
from the filing of the complaint of information. (sec. 5, Rule
112, Rules of Criminal Procedure)

if no probable cause , judge orders dismissal

But if case directly filed MTC (meaning no preliminary

investigation was done because the penalty is less than 4 years, 2
months, and 1 year), does the judge need to personally examine
the facts this time since it was not filed in the office of the
prosecutor

STILL NO

sec. 8, rule 112 it is discretionary on the part of the judge whether

to issue or not (look for this ask about this)

therefore a judge is not mandated to conduct a personal

examination of the complainant before issuing the warrant of arrest,
unlike in the case of search warrant

most likely this will delay the issuance of warrant of arrest

enough time for your client to escape

Particularly described in the warrant

Person covered must be particularly described in the warrant

Complete name and address if known

But if accused is not known, John and Jane Doe warrants are valid if
issued when the name is not known but such warrant is
accompanied by a description personae of the person to be
arrested, alias is allowed

Who will enforce the warrant of arrest?

PNP or NBI (law enforcement agencies)

Enforce within 10 days (reckoned from the date of the receipt of the
warrant)

Within ten (10) days after the expiration of the period, the officer to
whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge
who issued the warrant.
o

Remedies if information filed in court against your client when

you know that there is a possibility there will be a warrant of
arrest?

Almost always, within ten days the court will issue a warrant of
arrest without proper investigation (just signing it)

Remedy is the motion for judicial determination of probable

cause

When there is that motion, the judge will have to conduct the
hearing and examine with care

In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he shall state

the reasons therefor. (Sec. 4, Rule 113)

Arrest warrant remains valid even after expiration of 10 days of the

enforcement period (does not prescribe)

Search warrant expires after 10 days

o

May come out in the exam according to sir

When can the warrant be issued?

day or nighttime (sec, 6 rule 113 of ROC)

Officer does not actually need to have the warrant with him when
he arrests the person

When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer shall

inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and the
fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest,
o

EXCEPT when he flees or forcibly resists before the officer has

opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such
information will imperil the arrest.

The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time
of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires,
the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable. (sec. 7,
Rule 113)

Under Sec. 11, Rule 113, reasonable force may be done to issue
warrant of arrest, deceit is ok

Warrants of arrest are mostly confidential

Instances of Valid Warrantless Arrest (Sec. 5 rule 113)

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 just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

In Flagrante Delicto Arrests (a)

Person to be arrested has committed a crime, about to commit, or

is committing in the presence of the officer or private individual
o

Person arrested is caught in the attempted, consummatory,

executory stage

Seeing person pulling out a knife from the victim (Has been
committed Consummated stage)

Seeing person about to stab victim (about to commit)

Seeing a person stabbing victim (being committed)

in this arrest, important that the person making arrest has the
personal knowledge of the crime being done (use of any of the
different senses)

not limited to SEEING the commission, can use other senses

PP v. Claudio

Claudio was bringing with her a buri bag filled with pot. She placed
the bag on her back in front of a patrolman. Patrolman familiar with
the smell of pot so he placed his hand in the bag and smelled his
fingers
This was valid because the commission of the crime was perceived
through the sense of smell

Buy Bust Operations (Espano v. CA)

Arrest pursuant to mere reliable information

warrantless arrest of Din and Innocencio was invalid because mere

suspicion will not stand (PP v. Nuevas)

arrest in Molina case also invalid because it was based on mere

reliable information (PP v. Molina)

therefore, mere reliable information ALONE will not be enough

Montilla, Naspil, Tangliben, and Malmstedt Cases

All valid arrests without warrants pursuant to reliable information

because the INFORMANTS THEMSELVES were present at the
time of the arrest

The accused were also acting suspiciously

There was also a sense of urgency

These were not searches incidental to valid arrests because the

warrantless search preceded the arrest

Rodriguez ang Mengote Cases

Information relayed by telephone were declared invalid

Informants were nowhere to be found

justified under in flagrante delicto

Continuing Offense (Umil v. Ramos)

Valid arrest because the offense was a continuing one

Insurrection, rebellion, proposal to commit these crimes or any

other crime in occasion or connection of it

Serious illegal detention especially if the victim is still missing

Amminudin and Molina

Informants were there BUT the police officers had enough time to
secure a warrant of arrest (at least TWO days)

For Molina, they knew of the crime for TWO months

Amminudin v. Montilla, Naspil, and Malmstedt cases

In Amminudin they had all the information they needed, identity

and make of the vessel was already known but did not

In Montilla and Naspil they knew of the crime about to be

committed for several days yet they did not have enough
information to secure a warrant.

Information needed: identity of the perpetrator, vessel, what was

being carried, and crime being done

Escaped Detainee or Convict (c)

When the person to be arrested escaped a penal institution or

detention

Hot Pursuit Arrests (b)

Person making the arrest may not actually see the crime yet he
acquires personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that
will make him believe that the person to be arrested had done the
crime

Facts and circumstances need to point that there was a continued

pursuit of the offender

Padilla Case

Officers manning the bridge did not actually see the commission of
the crime (running over balut vendor)

But acquired personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances

Report through the Viper

Plate number of padilla was dangling

Dent on the vehicle of Padilla


Herente Case

Herente was arrested without a warrant after 3 hours of

investigating of the officers

Police officers had not actually seen the commission of the crime

Personal knowledge acquired through facts obtained from witnesses

and existing circumstances

If you want to contest the validity of the arrest, ALWAYS DO

BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT

If the arrest was unlawful, then the search will be unlawful

and anything obtained will not be admissible in court (sec.
3, Article III) EXCEPT WHEN:

Del Rosario (CONTROLLING CASE)

Hot pursuit arrest to be valid must not be too far removed from the
commission of the crime

There should be a LARGE measure of immediacy between the fact

of warrantless arrest and the crime

If days after the crime, warrantless arrest is DOUBTFUL

Nazareno Case

Arrested after 14 days

But what he filed was a writ of habeas corpus and an information

was already filed in court

Therefore the arrest was found to be valid anyway (moot and

academic)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most officers would risk arresting someone

illegally because once the information was already filed, it fixes the
illegality UNLESS the accused files a motion to quash the
information.

No objection before the arraignment

if the person making the arrest was a private individual

There is failure to object to the introduction of the evidence

in court

When the evidence was introduced against the person who

made the illegal arrest (not admissible against YOU, but
against the person who did the illegal arrest

If victim of illegal arrest, what are the possible remedies?

If the person making the illegal arrest is public officer, file a case of
arbitrary detention (Article 124, RPC)

If private individual, kidnapping and/or serious illegal detention

(Article 267, RPC)

Petition for Habeas Corpus (Rule 102 of Rules of court)

o

Failure to object legality of arrest

Can no longer assail the validity of the arrest

But if the information will already be filed in court, then it will

validate your continued detention and habeas corpus will be
moot

Petition for writ of Amparo (Admin Circular 7-12-9)

o

illegally detained with political complexity

but as soon as information filed in court, moot

Motion to Quash (sec. 3, par c of Rule 117) to question jurisdiction

of the court over the person of the accused

Example:

Fact of arrest confers jurisdiction

But always do this BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT, otherwise you

waiver the validity of the arrest

If the case will prosper, motion to quash will only be taken as

a note

Murder. Arrest for one month after the murder without a warrant.
When information filed in court, file a motion to quash anchored on
sec. 3, par. C of rule 117.

But if there are witnesses that will testify in court against the
murderer.

The legality of the arrest will not be affected by the motion to quash
and it will be taken only as a continued objection to the arrest
without a warrant.

The motion to quash will only be granted if the end all and
be all of the case would rest only on the legality of the
arrest and admissibility of the evidence against the person

Otherwise if there are other pieces of evidence NOT gained

through illegal arrest and search, then it will not AFFECT
the legality of the arrest