REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 123

2011 Edition

Rule 113
ARREST

SECTION 1.Definition of arrest.– Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (1)

Normally, an arrest happens after preliminary investigation – the case is filed in court, there would be a
warrant of arrest. Let’s go to some decided cases.

PANGANDAMAN vs. CASAR

159 SCRA 599

FACTS: This case originated in Lanao. The offended party was ambushed in Lanao, but he
survived. Based on his description, there were around 50 persons who staged the
ambush from both sides of the hill. However, he could not recognize anyone of the 50.
But he filed a case against all 50 ambushers, all “JOHN DOES”. So the court issued
warrant of arrest against the 50 “John Does”.

ISSUE: Is the warrant of arrest valid? Can a court issue a warrant of arrest against an unknown
accused?

HELD: NO. It is NOT valid. It is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs long
proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as totally subversive of the
liberty of the subject. Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of
arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. The warrant as
against unidentified subjects will be considered as null and void!

Delikado yan! JOHN DOE? Eh kung ako yung offended party; tawag akong pulis; kita ko yung isang kalaban ko –
“Ayan, isang John Doe yan!” Naloko na! Imagine, picking up 50 people? According to the Constitution, the warrant
of arrest must particularly describe the things to be seized or the person to be arrested.

PEOPLE vs. SALVATIERRA

276 SCRA 55 [July 24, 1997]

HELD: “Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.”

PEOPLE vs. ZASPA

(September 21, 2000)

HELD: On the validity of the warrantless arrest, along with the corresponding search and
seizure, suffice it to say that any objection regarding the regularity of an arrest must be
made before the accused enters his plea; otherwise, the defect shall be deemed cured
by the voluntary submission by the accused to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

SEC. 2.Arrest; how made.– An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his
submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be
subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. (2a)

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 124
2011 Edition

Q: Are you allowed to use violence in arresting an accused?

A: It depends. Section 2 says “no unnecessary force”. Meaning, if unnecessary, no violence shall be used. But if
the person to be arrested refuses to give up, then you use force – that is legal force.

So, instead of surrendering, he desisted and got his gun, he wanted to kill the arresting officer, then the
arresting officer may shoot him. This is what we call shoot to kill. This does not mean that you will shoot him the
first time you see him. Shooting will be done only if it is necessary. Do not interpret it literally that you have the
right to shoot him. It is only when necessary. This is what you call in criminal law as “I acted in the fulfillment of my
duty,” which is an exempting circumstance.

Q: Is handcuff necessary during arrest?

A: NO. Handcuff is only a symbolic act showing that you are arrested.

SEC. 3.Duty of arresting officer.– It shall be the duty of the officer executing the warrant to arrest the
accused and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay. (3a)

SEC. 4.Execution of warrant.– The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for
execution shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. 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. In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he shall state the reason
therefore. (4a)

When this provision (Section 4) came out in 1985, it created a lot of confusion. Some say the lifetime of a
warrant of arrest is only ten (10) days because the law says, “he shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten
(10) days from its receipt.” And then the law says, “Within ten (10) days after expiration of the period.” So some
said, 20 days.

Q: Which is correct? 10 or 20 days?

A: Both are wrong. There is no such thing as lifetime of a warrant of arrest. As much as possible, when you
receive it, you enforce it. Pag di makitaang accused, gumawa ka ng report. But do not return the warrant to the
issuing court. Hawakan mo yan! For all you know you might catch the accused next year. So there is no lifetime for
effectivity of a warrant of arrest.

MALALOAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS

234 SCRA 249

HELD: “No period is provided for the enforceability of warrants of arrest, and although within
ten days from the delivery of the warrant of arrest for execution a return thereon must
be made to the issuing judge, said warrant does not become functus officio but is
enforceable indefinitely until the same is enforced or recalled.”

Compare that with search warrant. Under Rule 126, Section 10, a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days
from it date. Thereafter, it shall be void. Iyan! Klaro yan! Only 10 days pag search warrant.

PEOPLE vs. GIVERA

(January 18, 2001)

HELD: Accused-appellant claims that his arrest at the East Avenue Medical Center on May 4,
1996 was made without a warrant. This is not true. He was arrested by virtue of a
warrant issued by the court on April 27, 1995. However, as the records show, the
warrant of arrest was returned unserved by the arresting officer on June 7, 1995 as
accused-appellant could not be found. He was finally found only on May 4, 1996. Now,

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 125
2011 Edition

no alias warrant of arrest is needed to make the arrest. Unless specifically provided in
the warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed. The
ten-day period provided in Rule 113, §4 is only a directive to the officer executing the
warrant to make a return to the court.
At any rate, accused-appellant must be deemed to have waived his right to object
thereto because he failed to move for the quashal of the information before the trial
court, entered a plea of not guilty and participated in the trial. As this Court has held,
any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court
of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise the objection is deemed waived.

VIUDEZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS

June 5, 2009

ISSUE: WON a pending resolution of a petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice
concerning a finding of probable cause will suspend the proceedings in the trial court,
including the implementation of a warrant of arrest?

HELD: NO. The function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest upon the determination of
probable cause is exclusive; thus, the consequent implementation of a warrant of arrest
cannot be deferred pending the resolution of a petition for review by the Secretary of
Justice as to the finding of probable cause, a function that is executive in nature. To defer
the implementation of the warrant of arrest would be an encroachment on the exclusive
prerogative of the judge.

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 cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
section 6 of Rule 112. (5a)

The most important section in Rule 113 is Section 5 – Warrantless arrest. Take note that a person authorized to
make a warrantless arrest is only a peace officer but it could also be a private person – called by some people as
citizen’s arrest.
I just read in yesterday’s news about a man in Bataan who made a citizen’s arrest because he got a report that
some people in the BIR were extorting money from Korean businessmen there. Somebody told him about it that
yung liability ng Korean mababaan pero mag-lagay ka. So this private person arrested the BIR people for a
committing a crime – extortion! He exercised his right under Section 5. He said that his reason was, I want these
foreign businessmen to pay the correct amount of taxes. Mau kani ang mga tao nga civic-spirited! Guapo ang
rason! And he exercised his right under Section 5.

Section 5 is also the situation in Rule 112, Section 7 on INQUEST preliminary investigation. When may a case be
filed in court without a preliminary investigation first conducted? Ito man ba – Section 5 – when a person is
arrested without a warrant.

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 126
2011 Edition

Now, there are three (3) instances mentioned in Section 5 for a valid warrantless arrest: [a], [b] and [c]. The
most famous is the first two – [a] and [b]. The third one [c] is not really complicated – when a person being arrested
is an escapee – di na kailangan ang warrant, hulihin mo na lang yan!

PEOPLE vs. MOLINA

(February 19, 2001)

HELD: As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. The
Rules of Court, however, recognizes permissible warrantless arrests. Thus, a peace
officer or a private person may, without 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 (arrest in flagrante delicto); (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 (arrest effected
in hot pursuit); and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or a 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 (arrest of escaped prisoners).

The most controversial are the first two: [a] and [b]. And [b] is more controversial than [a]. We can call
paragraph [a] as arrest inflagrante delicto. Paragraph [b], they call it hot pursuit arrest.

Q: Why is it that the law authorizes an arrest without warrant?

A: As explained by the SC in the case of

UMIL vs. RAMOS

187 SCRA 311

HELD: “To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and
tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the
mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals,
facilitating their escape in many instances.” [So, it would be a worse situation wherein
you cannot do anything precisely because you have no warrant. Something is wrong
there.]

IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO ARREST

The first instance of a valid warrantless arrest, paragraph [a]:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense;

Klaro yan, sa harap mo! Kaya nga in flagrante delicto arrest. And when you say “in his presence”, kailangan ba
talagang right in front of you? Halimbawa, mga 10 meters away?
Now, there was a case in Lanao del Norte when this provision came out in 1985. There was a barangay fiesta
somewhere. There were many people and there was a policeman. All of a sudden, may sigawan, “AAAHH! AAH!”
Takbo ang pulis. Then he saw on the street somebody down, lying on the ground with blood. And running away was
somebody with a knife. “Yun!Yun ang nagsaksak!”
Policeman: “Wa man nako nakita, hindi ako makaaresto!” My golly! There’s something wrong with this
policeman. Hindi man kailangan na literal na nakita mo ang pagsaksak! When I heard about the case, there is
something wrong with this policeman. Sabi niya, “under the law, ‘in his presence’, eh pag dating ko, tapos na eh.
Hindi ko nakita!”

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 127
2011 Edition

In 1992, there was a similar situation happened in the case of

PEOPLE vs. EVARISTO
261 SCRA 431

ISSUE: What do you mean by “in his presence”? Is it literal?

HELD: “An offense is committed in the presence or in the view of an officer within the meaning
of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant when an officer sees the offense
although at a distance, or hears the disturbance or disturbances created thereby and
proceeds at once to the scene of the crime.”

So, kahit hindi niya nakita, when he hears the disturbance, punta siya kaagad – still, within the meaning of this
rule, and covered by paragraph [a].

PEOPLE vs. ALUNDAY

June 1, 2007

FACTS: The Intelligence Section of the Prov. Office of the Mt. Province received the information
sometime in May 2000, and accused-appellant was arrested without a warrant during
the police raid at the plantation at Mt. Churyon, Sadanga, only on 3 August 2000 after a
series of validations conducted by the team to verify or confirm the report that indeed a
marijuana plantation existed at the area and after an operation plan was formed. When
the arresting team proceeded to the marijuana plantation they saw the accused
personally cutting and gathering marijuana plants. The accused assails his conviction for
being improper and illegal and asserts that the court a quo never acquired jurisdiction
over his person because he was arrested without a warrant and that his warrantless
arrest was not done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 5, Rule 113
of the 1985 Rules of Court. He insists that the arresting officers had three months within
which to secure a warrant from the time they received the information about an existing
marijuana plantation until they effected his arrest. He also maintains that the failure to
secure a warrant can never be justified by the urgency of the situation.

ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest was valid?

HELD: YES. Section 5(a) provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense. Section 5(a)
refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In flagrante delicto means caught in the act of
committing a crime. This rule, which warrants the arrest of a person without warrant,
requires that the person arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing it, or is
about to commit an offense, in the presence or within view of the arresting officer.
In this case, when the arresting team proceeded to the marijuana plantation they saw
the accused personally cutting and gathering marijuana plants. Thus, accused’s arrest on
was legal, because he was caught in flagrante delicto; that is, the persons arrested were
committing a crime in the presence of the arresting officers.
The Court held that when a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or
hears the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he
may effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis of Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his view. In
essence, Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused be caught in flagrante
delicto or caught in the act of committing a crime.

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 128
2011 Edition

The Court held that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

HOT PURSUIT ARREST

Now, the most controversial is yung pangalawa, the so-called hot pursuit arrest – Section 5 [b]:
(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;

History of Section 5 [b]: This paragraph [b] is the one which keeps on changing. The original language in the
1964 Rules is “when there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the crime”
which is a very controversial phrase – reasonable ground to believe – but the crime is not committed in your
presence.

They amended it in 1985, just immediately before this amendment, “when an offense has just been
committed, and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it.” Sabihin natin, what is the difference between [a] and [b]? – because in [a] the crime is committed in
your presence, the person to be arrested has committed, or is actually committing, di ba personal knowledge man
din yun? What is [b]? Actually in [b], the phrase“personal knowledge” does not mean you saw the crime,
otherwise it will be in [a] already. It is personal knowledge, not on what crime was committed, but of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. And what does that mean? In the case of

UMIL vs. RAMOS

202 SCRA 251

HELD: “Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrants must be based upon probable
cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. A reasonable
suspicion must be founded upon probable cause coupled with good faith on the part of
the peace officers making the arrest.”

PEOPLE vs. DORIA

(January 22, 1999)

HELD: Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113
must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion." The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of
the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on
probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest.

Yan lang! So it is not really that you saw it, but it is based upon probable cause which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion that is founded on probable cause coupled with good faith on the part of the
peace officers.

PEOPLE vs. ESCORDIAL

(January 16, 2002)

HELD: The question is whether these cases fall under paragraph (b) because the police officers
had personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead them to believe that
accused-appellant had just committed a crime. The phrase “personal knowledge” in

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 129
2011 Edition

paragraph (b) has been defined in this wise: Personal knowledge of facts in arrests
without a warrant under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 must be based upon “probable cause”
which means “an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.” The grounds of
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers,
the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense
is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good
faith on the part of the peace officer making the arrest. (Posadas vs. Ombudsman 341
SCRA 388)

That’s why when I read the explanation I think there is no difference between this and the prior rule because
the 1964 Rules is “ Reasonable ground”, the 1985 Rules is “probable cause based on reasonable suspicion” – di ba
ganun din? And maybe the SC felt that there is no difference between the 64 and 85 Rules, they came now with
another change in phraseology – “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.” So my
conclusion, the language now is a combination of the ’64 and ’85 Rules but they mean the same.

Now, this is one of the hardest areas in Rule 113 because there might be a problem – ganito ang nangyari:
ganito, ganyan, ganun. And then, “was there a valid warrantless arrest?” Both sides can be defended eh based on
this guideline: you could be literal or you could be liberal. If you are literal, patayang arresting officer – there is not
valid arrest. But if you are liberal, the officers have performed his duty properly.
That is why my advise in this aspect is this: read as many cases that you know about this issue because chances
are when the examiner will compose a problem based on this, he will really pattern it after one case otherwise he
will be lost also along the way. So, mas marami kang nabasa, mas madaling makilala, “Uy! Ito mang yung case ni
ganito!” Meaning, chances are maunawaan mo. So the more cases you read, the better. The best is to look for the
case which is closest as possible to the facts of the problem. Alright. Let’s go over the cases.

PEOPLE vs. BURGOS

144 SCRA 1

ISSUE: In case of doubt, to whom it should be resolved? in favor of the arresting officer or
against him the accused?

HELD: The doubt should be resolved against the peace officer because it is the constitutional
right of a person not to be arrested without a warrant but in some instances, he can be
arrested without a warrant. So in case of doubt, you always interpret the rule in favor
the general rule, not in favor of the exception.
“The right of a person to be secured against any unreasonable seizure of his body and
any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule
which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly construed.
Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing a warrant would be
absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally
construe the rule on arrest without warrant or extend its application beyond the cases
specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a
basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection.”

PEOPLE vs. RAMOS

186 SCRA 184 [1990]

FACTS: An information apprised some police officers of the presence of a drug pusher in the
corner of 3rd Rizal Street, Olongapo City. Actually, they were pointing to a cigarette
vendor – a woman selling cigarette. Acting on such information, and in the presence of

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 130
2011 Edition

the police officers, the superior officer gave the informant marked money. After 10 to 15
minutes the informant turned over to them two sticks of marijuana. The informant was
given marked money to purchase again. He returned with another two sticks of
marijuana. The police then effected the arrest of the woman.

ISSUE: Was the arrest valid? Did they act on personal knowledge? Did they see the informant
buy the marijuana?

HELD: Warrantless arrest is VALID. “From the above facts, it may be concluded that the
arresting police officers had personal knowledge of facts implicating the appellant with
the sale of marijuana to the informant-poseur buyer. We hold therefore that the arrest
was legal and the consequent search which yielded 20 sticks of marijuana was lawful for
being incident to a valid arrest.”
“The obligation to make an arrest by reason of a crime does not presuppose as a
necessary requisite for the fulfillment thereof the indubitable existence of a crime.”
Meaning, it is necessary that the authority making the arrest has reasonably sufficient
grounds to believe the existence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that
the same grounds exist to believe that the person sought to be detained participated
therein. It was already personal knowledge and it was construed in favor of warrantless
arrest.

In NAZARENO vs. STATION COMMANDER (187 SCRA 312), one of the companion cases in Umil vs. Ramos, the
SC interpreted the phrase “crime has just been committed.” How sure is just and how recent?

NAZARENO vs. STATION COMMANDER

187 SCRA 312

FACTS: In the early morning of December 14, 1988, one Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group
of men in Alabang, Muntinlupa, MM. One of the suspects in the killing was Ramil Regala
who was arrested by the police on December 28, 1988 (two weeks later). Upon
questioning, Regala pointed to Nazareno as one of his companions in the killing. In view
thereof, the police, without a warrant, picked up Nazareno and brought him to the
police headquarters for custody.

ISSUE: Was the arrest valid? When an offense has just been committed. What is “just been
committed”? 1 hour ago? 5 hours ago? 24 hours ago? How soon was “just”?

HELD: It was a VALID warrantless arrest. “Evidently, the arrest of Nazareno was effected by the
police without warrant pursuant to Sec. 5 (b), Rule 113, Rules of Court after he was
positively implicated by his co-accused Ramil Regala in the killing of Romulo Bunye II;
and after investigation by the police authorities. As held in People vs. Ancheta:
“The obligation of an agent of authority to make an arrest by reason of a crime, does not
presuppose as a necessary requisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitable existence
of a crime. For the detention to be perfectly legal, it is sufficient that the agent or person
in authority making the arrest has reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence
of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that the same grounds exist to believe
that the person sought to be detained participated therein.”

Justice Sarmiento dissented because 2 weeks cannot be considered as ‘just been committed,’ “Warrantless
arrest may be exercised only in most urgent cases and when the guilt of the offender is plain and evident.”
PEOPLE vs. CENDAÑA
190 SCRA 538

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 131
2011 Edition

FACTS: A person was killed and based on police sources, the killer is Cendaña. Without a
warrant, they arrested the suspect.

ISSUE: Was there a valid warrantless arrest?

HELD: The accused was arrested one day after the killing of the victim and only on the basis of
the information obtained by the police officer. The above circumstances clearly show
that there was a valid warrantless arrest.

PEOPLE vs. ALVAREZ

201 SCRA 364

FACTS: A cadaver was found in Palasan Cemetery in Valenzuela, MM. It was believed that a
group of addicts killed the unidentified person. The following day, while Ronald Alvarez,
and two of his friends, were having their conversation. Alvarez was bragging about how
he killed the victim. The father of Alvarez, a retired policeman, overheard them and
went to the police station and told the police: “I think you better arrest my son!” On the
basis of his information, the policemen when to the house of the accused and without a
warrant arrested the young Alvarez.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was personal knowledge so as to make the warrantless arrest
lawful.

HELD: Warrantless arrest was VALID. “Under Rule 113, Section 6 of the 1964 Criminal
Procedure, a warrantless arrest can be effected by a peace officer or private person
when an offense has, in fact, been committed and said peace officer or private person
has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.”
“In the instant case, it was the elder Alvarez who initiated the arrest a day after the
crime was committed. Having been once a policeman, he may be said to have been
equipped with knowledge of crime detection. And having had the opportunity to
observe the conduct of the three accused, who were at his house the whole day
following the commission, it is logical to infer that his act of going to the police,
informing them that three accused were the perpetrators of the crime and even fetching
them to make the arrest sprang from a well-grounded belief that a crime had been
committed and that accused had committed it. In this regard, the arrests without a
warrant were validly effected.”

PEOPLE vs. BRIONES

202 SCRA 708

FACTS: In the evening of April 23, 1988, Pantaleon Francisco was tendering his sari-sari store. At
about 11:30 p.m., accused Javier and Allied came to his store and ordered four bottles of
beer. Accused Briones arrived and was offered beer, but he declined and left. After about
30 minutes, Javier and Allied also left the store.
About 8 meters away from P. Francisco’s store was the house of spouses Felicisimo and
Florencia Gutierrez, at the ground floor of which was also a store. At the street near the
store was a 100-watt electric bulb. When all his customers had left, P. Francisco closed
his store. Not long after, he heard the barking of dogs from the Gutierrez residence.
Feeling that something untoward was taking place, he went out of his store, and from
there, he saw Briones, Javier and Allied mauling Florencia Gutierrez who was lying
prostrate on the ground. The three later dragged Mrs. Gutierrez inside her house and
closed the door.
In the morning of April 24, 1988, P. Francisco went to the house of the Gutierrezes. He

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 132
2011 Edition

found it in disarray, with the spouses sprawled dead on the first floor. He then informed
the Chief of Police of the incident and a team of investigators proceeded to the scene of
the crime. Subsequently, the culprits were apprehended on separate occasions.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the accused is valid.

HELD: The arrest was unlawful originally but it was cured. “It is unequivocally clear that no valid
arrest was made on the accused-appellants, the arrest having been made without any
warrant at all. Neither can the appellants' arrest qualify as a lawful arrest without a
warrant under Sec. 5 (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure because the
police officer who effected the arrest indubitably had no personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed the crime. It is eyewitnesses
Francisco who had such personal knowledge. In sum, therefore, the warrantless arrest of
the appellants is illegal.”
“Nevertheless, such unavailing technicality cannot render all the other proceedings,
including the conviction of the accused, void. It cannot deprive the state of its right to
convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to their culpability. In this regard,
the case of De Asis v. Romero, 41 SCRA 235 finds application. Thus, ‘One of the most
important of these settled rules is that any objection to the procedure followed in the
matter of the acquisition by a court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must
be opportunely raised before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed
waived.’”
“Immediately after their arrest, accused Briones and Javier could have objected to the
legality thereof due to the failure of the police officer to secure first a warrant for their
arrest. Not only that, without having questioned the legality of their arrest, they even
pleaded, on arraignment, to the information filed against them. Accused’s acts
constitute a clear waiver of their right against unlawful restraint of liberty. Besides, it
would be impractical, if not ridiculous to order the court a quo to set the appellants free
then issue a warrant for their arrest, and try them all over again when appellants
themselves have waived their right to object to such irregularity and when their
conviction is truly based on overwhelming evidence.”

PEOPLE vs. TONOG, JR.

205 SCRA 772

FACTS: On April 25, 1988, at around 6:00 a.m., the Dumaguete City Police Station, received a
report that there was a lifeless body found in the crossing. The deceased, who bore stab
wounds all over his body, was later identified as Efren Flores, son of the Deputy Station
Commander of the Dumaguete City Police Force. That same morning, a police officer,
Patrolman Walter Leguarda, went to the scene of the crime and conducted an
investigation. His investigation revealed that the assailant was certain Abdul Tonog of
Negros Oriental. The police investigator based his conclusion principally from the
information given to him by one LiberatoSolamillo. He was also informed by the
girlfriend of Tonog’s co-accused that prior to the stabbing incident, there were grudges
between Flores and Tonog.
In the afternoon of that same day, the police investigator, together with other police
operatives officer, without a warrant, proceeded to Negros Oriental, to look for Tonog,
who, upon being invited for questioning, voluntarily went with the law enforcers to the
police station, unaccompanied by counsel.
On their way to the police station, one of the policemen noticed the presence of blood
stains on the pants of the accused. when asked where the stains came from, the latter
allegedly answered that they were blood stains from a pig. This pants was submitted for
examination at the PC/INP Crime Laboratory. At the police station, the accused cried and

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 133
2011 Edition

looked for the Station Commander. He then confessed to the OIC of the police station,
which confession was not recorded nor reduced to writing. Subsequently, Tonog, along
with three others, was charged with murder. After trial, the court a quo rejected the
extra-judicial confession of the accused as the latter was not represented by counsel and
because the same had not been reduced to writing. Nonetheless, on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, it rendered a judgment of conviction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest was lawful.

HELD: Warrantless arrest was VALID. “While it is true that the police officers were not armed
with a warrant when they apprehended accused, the warrantless arrest, however, was
justified under Section 5(b), Rule 133 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure providing
that a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person "when an offenses has in
fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it.”
“In this case, Pat. Leguarda, in effecting the arrest of Accused-appellant, had knowledge
of facts gathered by him personally in the course of his investigation indicating that
Accused-appellant was one of the perpetrators.”

GO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

206 SCRA 138 [1992]

FACTS: On 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San Juan, Metro
Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Rolito Go entered Wilson St., where it is a one-
way street and started traveling in the opposite or "wrong" direction. At the corner of
Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., Go’s and Maguan’s cars nearly bumped each other. Go
alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Go then boarded his
car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down
petitioner's car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the
shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a
9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land Transportation Office showed that the car
was registered to one Elsa Ang Go, Rolito’s wife.
The following day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the
suspect had come from; they were informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop
shortly before the shooting. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit
card used by Go from the cashier of the bake shop. The security guard of the bake shop
was shown a picture of petitioner and he positively identified him as the same person
who had shot Maguan. Having established that the assailant, the police launched a
manhunt for Go which was published in various national dailies all over the country.
On 8 July 1991 (or 6 days after the shooting), Go presented himself before the San Juan
Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police; he was
accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to
the shooting, who was at the police station at that time, positively identified Go as the
gunman. That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide
against Go with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor informed Go, in the presence of his lawyers, that he could avail himself of his
right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go refused to execute any such waiver.
On 9 July 1991, while the complaint was still with the prosecutor, and before an
information could be filed in court, the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot
wounds. Accordingly, on 11 July 1991, the prosecutor, instead of filing an information for
frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder before the RTC. No bail was
recommended. At the bottom of the information, the Prosecutor certified that no

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 134
2011 Edition

preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not execute and
sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Rolito Go was valid.

HELD: The warrantless arrest was NOT VALID because they did not see the killing. Go’s arrest
took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The arresting officers obviously
were not present, within the meaning of Section 5[a], at the time Go had allegedly shot
Maguan. Neither could the arrest effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably
regarded as effected ‘when [the shooting had] in fact just been committed’ within the
meaning of Section 5 [b].”
“Moreover, none of the arresting officers had any ‘personal knowledge’ of facts
indicating that Go was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which
the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the
shooting -- one stated that Go was the gunman; another was able to take down the
alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in Go’s wife's
name. That information did not, however, constitute “personal knowledge.”

PEOPLE vs. MADRIAGA

211 SCRA 698

FACTS: Rolando Madriaga was arrested for selling marijuana in a buy-bust operation in
Caloocan. When asked by the police, Pat. Lechido, who acted as poseur-buyer, where he
got the stuff, Madriaga answered that the same came from a certain Orlando. Madriaga
pointed to the police a man, standing some 7 to 10 meters away from where he was
apprehended, as the source of the stuff. The man was then arrested. Found in his wallet
was the marked P10-bill. However, at the time of the arrest he was not selling marijuana.
When queried, the man answered that the money came from the other accused, Roland
Madriaga and that he got the money from the man who gave his name as Rolando
Pangilinan. In an information filed with the RTC of Caloocan City, accused Rolando
Madriaga and Rolando Pangilinan were charged with the violation of Dangerous Drugs
Act. After each of them entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment, trial on merits
ensued. After trial, the court a quo promulgated a judgment of conviction. Accused filed
a notice of appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of both accused was valid.

HELD: Warrantless arrest was VALID. “The arrest of both accused was validly effected under
paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court.
“Accused Rolando Madriaga was arrested in flagrante delicto; he was apprehended
while in the act of giving the marijuana to Pat. Lechido, the poseur buyer. As such, his
arrest, effected pursuant to paragraph (a) of the aforesaid Section 5, was valid.
Furthermore, the search conducted on his person was likewise valid because it was
made as an incident to a valid arrest in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Court.
“The warrantless arrest of the other accused Rolando Pangilinan falls under paragraph
(b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court. Pat. Lechido, as the poseur buyer
in the buy bust operation, had personal knowledge that an offense – the sale to him by
Madriaga of the marijuana - had in fact been committed. He also had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that Pangilinan was the source of the prohibited drug by
virtue of the information given to him by Madriaga to this effect. Thus, the arrest of
accused Pangilinan was likewise valid. Consequently, the search of Pangilinan's body
incident to his valid arrest was also valid. The evidence obtained from the search is,

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 135
2011 Edition

therefore, admissible in evidence.”

PEOPLE vs. MONDA, JR.
228 SCRA 115 [1993]

HELD: Warrantless arrest NOT valid. “It is interesting to note that the appellants were arrested
without a warrant despite the fact that three days had elapsed from the date of the
ambush to their arrest. Their apprehension may accordingly not be considered as
justified by Section 5[b] of Rule 113. If it were true that thee prosecution witnesses were
able to identify appellants during the ambush due to their distinguishing marks as they
claimed, it would have been easy for them to secure a John Doe warrant using
appellant’s alleged “distinguishing marks” as their discriptio personae which would
enable the arresting officer to serve the same infallibly.”

PEOPLE vs. RAYRAY

(February 1, 1995)

HELD: A policeman cannot callously set aside his essential duty of apprehending criminal
offenders and of keeping peace and order on the shallow excuse that he is not in his
place of assignment. His responsibility to protect the public by apprehending violators of
the law, especially one caught in flagrante delicto is not limited by territorial constraints.
It follows him wherever he goes. Moreover, Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure authorities a warrantless arrest, otherwise called a citizen's
arrest, "when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Thus, although officially assigned in
Baguio City, Lt. Ancheta's act of arresting accused-appellant (after the latter offered to
sell him marijuana in San Fernando, La Union) is justified not only by his duty as a law
enforcer but also by Sec. 5 of Rule 113, which authorizes instances of warrantless or
citizens' arrests.

SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU

227 SCRA 627 [1993]
FACTS: On August 12, 1993, PNP Commander Rex Pian issued an invitation to Mayor Sanchez of
Calauan, Laguna requesting hem to appear for an investigation at Camp Vicente Lim. The
alleged invitation was served to Sanchez on August 13 in the morning and he was
immediately taken to the said camp. A confrontation was made on the same day and
Sanchez was identified by two witnesses in their extrajudicial confession. The two
implicated Sanchez as principal in the slaying of Aileen Sarmienta and Allan Gomez. Then
he was arrested. So Sanchez questioned the arrest. He was actually detained and there
immediately a case was filed against him.

ISSUE: Whether the arrest was valid.

HELD: Warrantless arrest not valid BUT the defect was cured when the case was filed in court.
“The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the
Regional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by
virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on August 26, 1993 against him and the other
accused in connection with the rape-slay cases. It was belated, to be sure, but it was
nonetheless legal.”
“Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court
still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The rule is that if the
accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person he may move to quash
the information, but only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other
grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to have

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 136
2011 Edition

submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court.”

Actually the same thing happened to one of my clients. He was invited at the police station. There was an
invitation letter. I advised him not to accept the invitation. So he told the police officer, “I decline to accept the
invitation. According to my lawyer, I have another party to attend to.” Yun ang palusot niya! Mahirap itong ganitong
klase ng invitation. Sabagay, bakit ka naman imbitahin dun? Para mag-inuman dun? My golly!

The ruling in Sanchez was reiterated in the case of

LARRANAGA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

287 SCRA 581 [1998]

HELD: “We held in Sanchez v. Demetriou that the filing of charges and the issuance of the
warrant of arrest against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that
detention or at least deny him the right to be released because of such defect.”

PEOPLE vs. MANLULU

231 SCRA 701 [1994]

HELD: “The killing took place at one o'clock in the morning. The arrest and the consequent
search and seizure came at around seven o'clock that evening, some nineteen (19) hours
later. This instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest. While
Patrolman Perez may have personally gathered the information which led to the arrest
of Manlulu, that is not enough. The law requires "personal knowledge." Obviously,
"personal gathering of information" is different from "personal knowledge." The rule
requires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense, not some
nineteen (19) hours later.”

PEOPLE vs. AGUSTIN

240 SCRA 541 [1995]

HELD: Warrantless arrest NOT valid. “The appellant was picked up on 10 February 1987 by
military men in Pangasinan without a warrant for his arrest. Since the crimes with which
the appellant was charged were allegedly committed on 6 September 1986 or more than
five months earlier, no arrest without a warrant could have been legally and validly
effected.”

PEOPLE vs. MONTILLA

285 SCRA 703 [1998]

HELD: “The evidentiary measure for the propriety of filing criminal charges and, correlatively,
for effecting a warrantless arrest, has been reduced and liberalized. In the past, our
statutory rules and jurisprudence required prima facie evidence, which was of a higher
degree or quantum. Those problems and confusing concepts were clarified and set
aright by the 1985 amendment of the Rules of Court which provides in Rule 112 thereof
that the quantum of evidence required in preliminary investigation is such evidence as
suffices to “engender a well founded belief” as to the fact of the commission of a crime
and the respondent's probable guilt thereof. It should, therefore, be in that sense,
wherein the right to effect a warrantless arrest should be considered as legally
authorized.”

In the case of Montilla, the standard of the fiscal to file a case is probable cause. So to effect a warrantless
arrest, pareho din – probable cause! Unlike before, it is prima facie – ibayan! That is a higher degree. Alam mo ba

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 137
2011 Edition

ang prima facie?

Prima Facie means the evidence by itself, if unrebutted can already convict you. Whereas probable cause, 20%
lang you are probably guilty. Probable cause to determine whether you should be indicted under Rule
112.Probable cause for the judge to issue a warrant after the information is filed. Now in Rule 113, probable cause
to determine whether there is a valid warrantless arrest. And then when you reach Rule 126, the standard for valid
warrantless search and seizure – probable cause na naman!

DAVID VS ARROYO
G.R. No. 171396(David et al.)

HELD: The Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secured in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized."The plain import of the language of the Constitution is that searches,
seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued
search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection given by this
provision is that between person and police must stand the protective authority of a
magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of
arrest.
In the Brief Account submitted by petitioner David, certain facts are established: first, he
was arrested without warrant; second, the PNP operatives arrested him on the basis of
PP 1017; third, he was brought at Camp Karingal, Quezon City where he was
fingerprinted, photographed and booked like a criminal suspect; fourth,he was treated
brusquely by policemen who "held his head and tried to push him" inside an unmarked
car; fifth, he was charged with Violation of Batas PambansaBilang No. 880 and Inciting
to Sedition; sixth, he was detained for seven (7) hours; and seventh,he was eventually
released for insufficiency of evidence.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

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
x xx.
Neither of the two (2) exceptions mentioned above justifies petitioner David?s warrantless arrest. During the
inquest for the charges of inciting to seditionand violation of BP 880, all that the arresting officers could invoke
was their observation that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the invective "Oust Gloria Now" and their
erroneous assumption that petitioner David was the leader of the rally. Consequently, the Inquest Prosecutor
ordered his immediate release on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. He noted that petitioner David was not
wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was wearing it, such fact is insufficient to charge him with inciting to
sedition. Further, he also stated that there is insufficient evidence for the charge of violation of BP 880 as it was
not even known whether petitioner David was the leader of the rally.
But what made it doubly worse for petitioners David et al. is that not only was their right against warrantless
arrest violated, but also their right to peaceably assemble.

ADDITIONAL INSTANCES OF VALID WARRANTLESS ARRESTS

Now there are instances where there could be a valid warrantless arrest in addition to Section 5 of Rule 113.

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 138
2011 Edition

These instances are the following:

1. Section 13, Rule 113:

“If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately pursue or retake him without
a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines.”

2. Section 23, Rule 114 on bail:

“For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority
endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of
suitable age and discretion.
x xxxx”

So if you are out on bail, your bondsman becomes your jailer in the eyes of the law. Kung ayaw na niya sa iyo
and he wants to give up the responsibility of watching over you, he can arrest you without a warrant and surrender
you to the court, “Bahala na kayo sa kanya. Ayoko na!” And he will be released from responsibility.

3. Section 23, Rule 114, last paragraph:

“An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart
from the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending.”

So, accused ka out on bail, and then merong nmagsabi, “Magpuntang abroad, mag-tour.” Pwede kang hulihin
niyan ba without a warrant because you attempted to leave the country without the permission of the court where
you case is pending. I think that is the reason why they hurry up the filing of the cases against Estrada. Pag-na-file
na, hindi ka basta-basta makalipad.

So, those are the instances where there could be a valid warrantless arrest in addition to Section 5 of Rule 113.

SEC. 6.Time of making arrest.– An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. (6)

This is self-explanatory. There is nothing in the law which says you can only do the arrest in the day time. You
can do it during office hours. It can be done at any time or any day, depending upon the situation.

SEC. 7.Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant.– 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, 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. (7a)

(Note: The arrest here is by virtue of a warrant)

There are instances when the arresting officer is looking for somebody and he cannot find him. Then after
several hours, he finds the offender. But the problem is the arresting officer does not have with him the warrant.
Maybe it is in his office.

Q: Does he have to go back to the office and get the warrant?

A: NO. Arrest him immediately because he might escape afterwards.

Q: How about the warrant? Is it necessary that the arresting officer must have with him the warrant and show
it to the arrestee at the time of the making the arrest?

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 139
2011 Edition

A: NO. 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.
MALLARI vs. CA
(December 9, 1996)

HELD: This is not a case of a warrantless arrest but merely an instance of an arrest effected by
the police authorities without having the warrant in their possession at that precise
moment. Finding as it does, this Court deems it unnecessary to delve into the
applicability of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court and on the merits of both the
petitioner’s and the Office of the Solicitor General’s arguments with respect thereto.
The applicable provision is not Section 5, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court on warrantless
arrests, but Section 7, Rule 113.

Q: When an officer is making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, how will he effect the arrest?
A: The GENERAL RULE is: the officer must inform the person to be arrested of
1. the cause of the arrest; and
2. the fact that a warrant has been issue for his arrest.

EXCEPTIONS: In the following instances, the failure of the arresting officer to inform the arrestee of the above
is excusable:
1. when the person to be arrested flees; or
2. when the person to be arrested forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him of the
cause of his arrest and of the fact that the a warrant has been issued for is arrest; or
3. when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

SEC. 8.Method of arrest by officer without warrant.– When making an arrest without a warrant, the
officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is
either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, has escaped,
flees, or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such
information will imperil the arrest. (8a)

Q: How does an office effect an arrest WITHOUT a warrant?

A: GENERAL RULE: the officer must inform the person to be arrested of:
1. his (arresting officer’s) authority; and
2. the cause of the arrest.

EXCEPTION: in the following instances, the officer’s failure to apprise the arrestee of his authority and the
cause of the arrest, is justified:
1. when the person to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an offense;
2. when the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission;
3. when the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after escape;
4. when the person to be arrested flees;
5. when the person to be arrested forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him;
6. when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY

(February 1, 1999)

HELD: The Court, as guardian of the rights of the people lays down the procedure, guidelines
and duties which the arresting, detaining, inviting, or investigating officer or his

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 140
2011 Edition

companions must do and observe at the time of making an arrest and again at and
during the time of the custodial interrogation in accordance with the Constitution,
jurisprudence and Republic Act No. 7438. It is high-time to educate our law-enforcement
agencies who neglect either by ignorance or indifference the so-called Miranda rights
which had become insufficient and which the Court must update in the light of new legal
developments:
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be
informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest
and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings,
information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by
said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he
makes may be used as evidence against him;
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the
presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a
lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any
person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person
arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no
custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his
counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
communicate or confer by the most expedient means – telephone, radio, letter or
messenger – with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his
immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any
one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly
accredited national or international non-government organization. It shall be the
responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the
same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed
that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must
be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to
speak;
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at
any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with
warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if
the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already
begun;
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain
silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at
any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some
questions or volunteered some statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be,
obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
SEC. 9.Method of arrest by private person.– When making an arrest, a private person shall inform the
person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the case of the arrest, unless the latter is either
engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, or has escaped, flees,
or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving
of such information will imperil the arrest. (9a)

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 141
2011 Edition

c.f. Section 5, Rule 113. A private person may also effect an arrest. This is known as citizen’s arrest.
When it is a private person who effects an arrest, he should inform the arrestee of his INTENTION to arrest the
latter and the CAUSE of the arrest. The exceptions in this rule are the same as under Section 8.

SEC. 10.Officer may summon assistance.– An officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many
persons as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. Every person so summoned by an officer
shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself. (10a)

For as long as the arrest is lawful, the office may seek the help of as many civilians as he may call, and the
person so summoned cannot refuse to render assistance provided that in so helping, he does not put himself to
danger.
US vs. POMPEYA
(August 6, 1915)

HELD: This ancient obligation of the individual to assist in the protection of the peace and good
order of his community is still recognized in all well-organized governments in the "posse
comitatus" (power of the county, poderdel condado). (Book 1 Cooley's Blackstone's
Commentaries, 343; Book 4, 122.) Under this power, those persons in the state, county,
or town who were charged with the maintenance of peace and good order were bound,
ex oficio, to pursue and to take all persons who had violated the law. For that purpose
they might command all the male inhabitants of a certain age to assist them. This power
is called "posse comitatus" (power of the county). This was a right well recognized at
common law. Act No. 1309 is a statutory recognition of such common-law right. Said Act
attempts simply to designate the cases and the method when and by which the people
of the town (pueblo) may be called upon to render assistance for the protection of the
public and the preservation of peace and order. It is an exercise of the police power of
the state.

SEC. 11.Right of officer to break into building or enclosure.– An officer, in order to make an arrest either
by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may break into any building or
enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance
thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose. (11a)

Example: If the person to be arrested is hiding inside a building or nay enclosure, the arresting officer is
empowered to break any door to effect entrance, provided the following requisites are present:
1. the arresting officer is refused admittance;
2. the arresting officer has announced his authority to effect the arrest, with or without warrant; and
3. the arresting officer has announced his purpose in making the arrest.

SEC. 12.Right to break out from building or enclosure.– Whenever an officer has entered the building or
enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate
himself. (12a)

Q: What is the difference between Sections 11 and 12?

A: Section 11 is entrance, whereas Section 12 talks of exit from the building.

Q: How come he is locked inside?

A: It may happen this way: The door is open, you enter the house, then make the arrest but the arrestee’s
companions locked you inside. You cannot go out anymore. You cannot bring the arrestee out.

Q: Will you be liable for breaking the door?

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 142
2011 Edition

A: NO because you have to get out together with the person arrested. You have the right to break in to effect
the arrest and you also have the right to break out to bring out the person from the area. You cannot keep him
inside.

SEC. 13.Arrest after escape or rescue.– If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines. (13)

Mr. Pobre is arrested, then he escapes again. Anyone can re-arrest him without a warrant. So if we will analyze,
in addition to the instances enumerated under Section 5, this section (Section 13) is another situation where a
warrantless arrest may be validly effected.
Here, the person who may be arrested without a warrant has already been lawfully arrested, with or without a
warrant, prior to his escape. Once he escapes, ANY person – a police officer or a civilian – may run after him even
without a warrant anywhere within the Philippines.
Another example: Mr. Pañales is a detention prisoner. If he is RESCUED by his relatives or sympathizers while
he is being lawfully detained, ANY person may re-arrest him without the need of a warrant anywhere in the
country.

SEC. 14.Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested. – Any member of the Philippine Bar shall,
at the request of the person arrested or of another acting in his behalf, have the right to visit and confer
privately with such person in the jail or any other place of custody at any hour of the day or night. Subject to
reasonable regulations, a relative of the person arrested can also exercise the same right. (14a)

Any person who is arrested in custody can be visited by his lawyer or a relative. Now, try to correlate this with a
special law, RA 7438 – “An Act defining certain right of persons arrested, etc.”: Section 2 [f] thereof:

“Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with
any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any
member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly
accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly
accredited by the Office of the President.”
“The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or
sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.”
Those are the member of your immediate family from the viewpoint of the law. What is lacking is the
houseboy or housemaid. One cannot prevent those mentioned from visiting the detained or arrested person.

SITUATION: I am the police, who are you?

Mr. Peloton: I am the spiritual guardian.
Police: Ah, hindi pwede!

Q: What will happen to the policeman? Let us say, you will boast that you are a policeman?
A: Section 4 [b], RA 7438 states:

“Any person who obstruct, persons or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by
him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, of
from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent
cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6)
years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).”

Thus, if you are a policeman and you will not allow the above-mentioned persons to visit the detention
prisoners, then you will be imprisoned. That is what the law says.

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University
REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 143
2011 Edition

NOTE: During the 1993 bar exams, there was a problem: Francis was arrested, then his girlfriend visited him.
GF: “I would like to visit Francis. I would like to talk to him.”
POLICEMAN: “Who are you?”
GF: “I am so and so...”
POLICEMAN: “How are you related to him?”
GF: “I am his fiancée.”
POLICEMAN: “Ah wala, hindi pwede. You are not a member of the family.”

Q: Is the policeman correct?

A: The policeman is liable because according to Section 2, RA 7438, the Francis’ immediate family shall include
his spouse, fiancée, etc. And Section 40 of the said law, provides for the penalty to be imposed on the arresting
officer who impedes or obstructs such right.

So from the definition of the law, she is a member of the immediate family. Maybe in the meantime, the
policeman has the duty to rely on the fiancée’s word, but if there are two of them, only one will be allowed.

Q: Where can the visit be allowed?

A: In the jail or any other place of custody. Meaning, wherever Francis is being detained; not only limited to
jails, police stations or military barracks. He or anyone on his behalf may demand that he be allowed to talk
privately with his lawyer, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night.

We are now through with Rule 113.

LAKAS ATENISTA
College Of Law, Ateneo De Davao University