Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

II Warrantless Arrest

RULE 113 ARREST

What is 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.
How is an arrest made?
Arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest.
What does it mean when jurisprudence says that the officer, in making the arrest, must
stand his ground?
It means that the officer may use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect the arrest.
What is the duty of the arresting officer who arrests a person?
He must deliver the person immediately to the nearest jail or police station.
Within what period must a warrant of arrest be served?
There is no time period. A warrant of arrest is valid until the arrest is effected or until it is
lifted. The head of the office to whom the warrant was delivered must cause it to be executed
within 10 days from its receipt, and the officer to whom it is assigned for execution must make a
report to the judge who issued it within 10 days from the expiration of the period. If he fails to
execute it, he should state the reasons therefor.
When is an arrest without warrant lawful?
A peace officer or private person may arrest without warrant:
1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is about to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
3. 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.
A police officer was chasing a person who had just committed an offense. The person
went inside a house, so the police officer followed. Inside the house, the police officer saw
drugs lying around. Can he confiscate the drugs? Can he use them as evidence?
Yes. The plain view doctrine is applicable in this case because there was a prior valid intrusion,
the police officer inadvertently discovered the evidence, he had a right to be there, and the
evidence was immediately apparent.
What if the officer merely peeks through the window of the house and sees the drugs
can he confiscate them? Can he use them as evidence?
He can confiscate them, without prejudice to his liability for violation of domicile. He cannot
use them as evidence because the seizure cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine, there
being no previous valid intrusion.
When should an arrest be made?
It can be made on any day and at any time of the day and night.
Can an officer arrest a person against whom a warrant has been issued even if he does
not have the warrant with him?
Yes, but after the arrest, if the person arrested requires, it must be shown to him as soon as
practicable.

Republic Act No. 7438 April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR


UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress


assembled::

Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every
human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of
Public Officers.

(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by
counsel.

(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests,
detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a
language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to
confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such
person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and
independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained
does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his
counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or
dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be
null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in
the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers
and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or
priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall
be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect.

(f) 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, fianc
or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or
niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation"
to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

Section 3. Assisting Counsel. Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected
by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the
prosecution of crimes.

The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;

(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with
light felonies;lawphi1alf

(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with
less grave or grave felonies;

(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with a capital offense.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial
investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the
province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or
City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before
the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected
person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 4. Penalty Clause. (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating
officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not
less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual
absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been
previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting upon
orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents 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, or 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).lawphi1

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial
responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be
necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape.

Section 5. Repealing Clause. Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed.
Other laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 6. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in
the Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Approved: April 27, 1992.lawphi1

Article 3 Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
RULE 112 Section 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a person is
lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary
investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the
absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended
party or a peace office directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
party or arresting officer or person.

Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary
investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the
waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days
from its inception.

After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the
accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary
investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule. (7a;
sec. 2, R.A. No. 7438)

Inquest proceedings -The purpose of the inquest proceedings in these cases is that while the
state acknowledges the law enforcers authority to arrest and detain persons without a warrant,
the state must also ensure that these persons are not unlawfully detained, and that they are not
denied due process. The inquest establishes whether the evidence is sufficient enough to seek
court approval to keep the person in detention.

Assignment for SEPTEMBER 15,2017


We will discuss the cases for Warrant-less arrest and we will no longer discus the cases in
jurisdiction.
(for those who are blessed to be called for the recitation,Judge Villena will pick a case randomly
so be ready. Last time, lucky students are those who are absent last meeting.)

1. People v. Paliza 14 January 2015


Based on a confidential information that a pot session was taking place at the house of a
certain Obet in Bgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna, SPO3 Dela Pena formed a team composed of
the confidential informant, PO2 Bautista, PO3 Parunggao, POI Signao and himself as team
leader, to conduct an operation. Upon arrival at the area, they saw the house closed, but not
surrounded by a fence, hence PO2 Bautista approached the house and peeped through a small
opening in the window, where he saw four persons having a pot session. After finding a way to
enter the house, the team caught the four persons by surprise, and after they introduced
themselves as police officers, found drugs paraphernalia at the scene. A body search conducted
on the persons yielded a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which sachets
were marked by PO3 Parunggao with their initials corresponding to their names, Jeric Pavia
(JP), and Juan Buendia (JB). These sachets were then transmitted to the laboratory where
examination yielded them to be shabu. Thus, the accused were charged with violation of Section
13, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and corresponding information filed against them. In their
defense, the two denied liability. According to them, they were just roaming the streets of Bgy.
Cuyab selling star apples when they were called to a house by a prospective buyer, hence they
entered the house. When they were about to leave, the policemen arrived, introduced
themselves and invited them to the police station.
After trial, the RTC convicted the accused as charged. A lawful arrest preceded the search; no
improper notice could be ascribed against the police officers, hence their testimony deserved full
faith and credit. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the RTC
judgment. Hence, they elevated their case to the Supreme Court.

The Issue:

Whether or not the accused were properly arrested?


The Ruling:

The Ruling of the RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove the offense charged
through the spontaneous, positive and credible testimony of its witness. The trial court noted that
the police officers carried out a lawful arrest before they proceeded with the bodily search of
appellants. Moreover, there was no clear and convincing evidence that the team of PO3
Parunggao was inspired by any improper motive when they carried out their operation. Thus, the
testimony of PO2 Bautista on the witness stand, narrating the events leading to the apprehension
of appellants, deserves full faith and credit.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding
that the evidence on record support the trial courts conclusion that a lawful arrest, search and
seizure took place, and that the prosecution fully discharged its burden of establishing, beyond
reasonable doubt, all the elements necessary for the conviction of the offense charged.

The ruling of supreme court In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to deviate from the
well discussed decision of the CA, its findings and conclusions having been supported by both
law and applicable jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 7
February 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04020 is AFFIRMED.

2. Pestilos v. Generoso, 10 November 20.

Pestilos v Generoso

G.R. No. 182601 | SCRA | November 10, 2014 | Brion, J.


Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari

Petitioners: Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry Fernandez and Ronald
Muoz

Respondents: Moreno Generoso and People of the Philippines

DOCTRINE

0 In order to apply hot pursuit, following must be present: 1) the crime should have been
just committed; and 2) the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by

the standard of probable cause to be determined from the facts and circumstances within
his personal knowledge

Relevant Provision

a. Rule 113 Sec 5 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

FACTS
1. Facts

a. On February 20, 2005, at around 3: 15 in the morning, an altercation ensued between


the petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso at Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy
Spirit, Quezon City

b. Atty. Generoso called the Central Police District, Station 6 to report


a. Desk Officer dispatched SP02 Dominador Javier and 2 others to go to the
scene of the crime and to render assistance

b. Epon arrival less than one hour after the alleged altercation, they saw Atty.
Generoso badly beaten
c. Invited petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation

a. At the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found that the
petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon
b. Petitioners were indicted for attempted murder

2. Cause of Controversy

a. Petitioner: (I) Alleged that no valid warrantless arrest took place since the police
officers had no personal knowledge that they were the perpetrators of the crime.

(AI) Alleged that they were just "invited" to the police station. Thus, inquest
proceeding was improper, and a regular procedure for preliminary investigation
should have been performed

b. Respondent: Warrantless arrest valid


3. Lower Courts Ruling
a. Trial Court- Denied Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation

b. CA- Denied. Invited carried the meaning of command.

ISSUES
1. W/N the warrantless arrest under the aforementioned circumstance is valid- YES

RULING & RATIO

a. There are three elements to apply the doctrine of hot pursuit. (I) Probable cause, (II)
offense has just been committed and (III) arresting officer's personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime
a. The probable cause referred here requires less quantum of proof than that of
probable cause that the judge needs to have before issuing warrant of arrest.

b. Refers only to actual facts or raw evidence personally gathered within a limited
time frame

c. The clincher in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is


the required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances
should be gathered

d. Reason for immediacy: As the time gap from the commission of the crime to the
arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become
contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay

b. Element are present in this case

a. The police blotter stated that the alleged crime was committed at 3:15 a.m and the
blotter was timed at 4:15 AM. Hence, arrest was less than half an hour.

b. Petitioners admitted that they caused the bruises on Atty Generosos body but
claimed that they did it for self-defense

c. Sec 5 (B) does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being
committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the crime is
patent and the officer had a probable cause that person to be arrested has recently
committed

c. Term invited construed to mean authoritative command


a. Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint

or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an


intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and the intent of the
other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary

b. Furthermore, SP02 Javier had informed the petitioners, at the time of their arrest,
of the charges against them before taking them

DISPOSITION

0 WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition, and hereby


AFFIRM the decision dated January 21, 2008 and the resolution dated April 17, 2008 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91541. The City Prosecutor of Quezon City is
hereby ORDERED to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

NOTE:

Brief History of Warrantless Arrest and Section 5 (B) doctrine of hot pursuit

The constitutional mandate against unreasonable search and seizure is identical with the
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment traces its
origins to the writings of Sir Edward Coke and The Great Charter of the Liberties of England
(Magna Carta Libertatum). Thus, it was stated in the Magna Carta Libertatum:

No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties,


or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass
upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land,
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right
In our jurisdiction, early rulings of the Court have acknowledged the validity of
warrantless arrests. The Court based these rulings on the common law of America and England
that, according to the Court, were not different from the Spanish laws

Section 5 (B) reflects the doctrine of hot pursuit. Prior to the 1940 Rules of Court, it
was not necessary for the arresting officer to first have knowledge that a crime was actually
committed. What was necessary was the presence of reasonably sufficient grounds to believe
the existence of an act having the characteristics of a crime. However, under the 1940 and the
1964 Rules of Court, the Rules required that there should be actual commission of an offense,
thus, removing the element of the arresting officer's "reasonable suspicion of the commission of
an offense." Under the 1985 Rules of Court however, it added a qualification that the
commission of the offense should not only have been "committed" but should have been "just
committed." This was done to prevent arrests based merely on heasay.

3. People v. Villareal. GR No.201363, 18 March 2013


PO3 Renato de Leon was driving his motorcycle on his way home along 5th Avenue when
he saw Nazareno from a distance of about 8 to 10 meters, holding and scrutinizing in his hand a
plastic sachet of shabu. Thus, PO3 de Leon alighted from his motorcycle and approached
Nazareno whom he recognized as someone he had previously arrested from illegal drug
possession. Upon seeing PO3 de Leon, Nazareno tried to escape but was quickly apprehended
with the help of a tricycle driver. PO3 de Leon was able board Nazareno on to his motorcycle
and confiscate the plastic sachet of shabu in his possession.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid.

HELD. NO. Nazarenos acts of walking along the street and holding something in his hands
even if they appeared to be dubious, coupled with his previous criminal charge for the same
offense, are not by themselves sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity or to create
probable cause enough to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 of Rule 113.

Probable Cause has been understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans belief that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
4. People v. Martinez. 13 December 2010
Facts:
The police received reports of a pot session in the house of one of the accused, Rafael
Gonzales. They went into the house and immediately arrested the group of accused. In the house
they found open plastic sachets that allegedly contain shabu residue as well as pieces of
aluminum foil. The appellants along with the items found at the house were brought to the
precinct. Because 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil seized in the house was proven to
contain shabu residue, a criminal charge was filed against them, where the court ruled in favor of
the people. The accused Rafael Gonzales appealed to the court.

Issue: Whether or not there was an illegal warrantless arrest.

Held:
Yes, there was an illegal warrantless arrest. Under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court,
a warrantless arrest is applicable only in the following instances: (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 he 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 service final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Though receiving reports from informants is a valid cause to find the alleged perpetrators, the
case presented is not a valid case of warrantless arrest because the activity was not something
the officers can consider as a personal knowledge as it was not an act that can be immediately
seen in public. The police officers in this case cannot rely on informants and suspicion to legally
enter the premises.
Hence, the officers must have first conducted a surveillance to find probable cause. If probable
cause exists they must secure a search warrant. It is only then that they may enter the premises
of Gonzales and proceed to the arrest and seizure of property.

The illegal arrest of the appellants as well as the illegal confiscation of property must not be held
against the appellants. While it is true that the rules of procedure are used as a means to achieve
justice, it must not be done so as to prejudice substantial rights. Thus, the accused are acquitted
from the crime charged.

5. People v. Molina, 19 February 2001


Facts:
In June 1996, Police Officer Marino Paguidopon was told by an informant of the presence
of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. When he went with the informant to find this
alleged drug pusher, the informant pointed at accused Mula, a motorcycle driver, as the pusher.
On August 8, 1996, upon receiving another information, Paguidopon called for assistance of
PNP where other police officers gathered at his house where they waited for the appellant Mula
to pass by. When Mula and Molina passed by, the police officers boarded their vehicle and
found dried mariuana inside their bag. They were subsequently arrested. When a case was
charged against the appellants they contended that the marijuana seized from them which was
incident to their arrest should not be admissible as evidence because it violates their right from
unreasonable searches and seizures.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure fall within the recognized
exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Held:
No, there was not valid warrantless arrest and likewise no valid warrantless search and
seizure. Cases where warrant is unnecessary is indicated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of
Court. These cases are: (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 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.

It does not fall under any of the exceptions because there was no commission or act that is
considered as illegal when the appellants were arrested. For an in flagrante delicto arrest to exist
the following must exist: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that
he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to c0mmit a crime, and (2) such
overt act is done in the presence of within the view of the arresting officer. They did not indicate
that they were about to commit, were committing, or committed a crime at the time they were
arrested. While reliable information is enough to ground a suspicion, it is not strong enough so
as to indicate probable cause much less justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
6. People v. Mengote, 25 May 1994
On August 8, 1987, an informant called the Western Police District regarding suspicious looking
persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila. Patrolmen
Rolando Mercado and Alberto Juan went to the area wearing plainclothes in order to observe the
area. They noticed two men suspiciously looking from side to side. One of them was holding his
abdomen. The policemen revealed to them that they were police officers which caused them to
run away. They were unsuccessful because by then they were already surrounded by police
officers stationed for this operation. The two men were later identified as Nicanor Morellos and
the accused Rogelio Mengote. Both men were searched and a stolen revolver with six live
bullets was found under Mengotes possession. Morellos was found to be in possession of a fine
knife. Mengote was charged and convicted for violating P.D. 1866. Mengote attested that the
revolver must not have been seized as an incident to a lawful arrest, because the arrest itself is
unlawful.

Issue: Whether or not the arrest of Mengote is unlawful so as to constitute the seizure of stolen
property inadmissible as evidence in court.

Held:
Yes, in no case was it established that the acts of the appellant constitute as an exception to
the rule that warrant of arrest must first be issued before a lawful arrest is established. Rule 113
of Section 5 of the Rules of Court establishes the instances where warrant is unnecessary,
namely: (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 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.

Looking from side to side and holding your abdomen is not enough to constitute as an offense. It
is not even enough to assume probable cause. Warrantless arrest cannot simply be imposed upon
those who merely look suspicious, allowing so would prejudice a persons constitutional rights.
Knowledge of a crime in the police officers presence must precede the arrest. Hence, the
appellant is acquitted from the crime charged.
7. People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220
On March 2, 1982, a surveillance mission was conducted by Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan
with Barangay Tanod Sacdalan at the Victory Liner Terminal in Pampanga based on a tip given
by an informant. They saw the appellant carrying a red bag and acting suspiciously. They asked
him to open the travelling bag but he refused. When the opened the same they found marijuana
leaves, the appellant claims that he was supposed to deliver them to Olongapo City. Upon arrest,
the alleged marijuana leaves were tested. They were indeed found to be marijuana. He was
charged and found guilty of illegal possession of illegal drugs.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest.

Held:
Yes, there was a valid warrantless arrest because during his arrest he was in flagrante delicto.
He was in the act of possessing marijuana. This case, therefore, falls under Section 5 (a), Rule
113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that a warrantless arrest may be valid
when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.

Furthermore, the search was not made purely on the basis of him looking suspicious; it was also
because of the tip given by an informant that built their surveillance mission out of urgency of
handling on the spot information. Hence, there was no time for them to request for a warrant of
arrest. Hence, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
8. People v. Malmstedt, 19 lune 1991
On May 11, 1989, the appellant, Malmstedt, a Swedish National, rode a bus stop in order to
catch a trip to Baguio City. On the same day, the Commanding Officer of the First Regional
Command, Captain Alen Vasco ordered to set up a checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay,
Mountain Province. This was established to prevent the alleged delivery of marijuana in the area
and also to catch a Caucasian coming from Sagada, who based on information received by
Vasco that morning that an alleged Caucasian was the one carrying the drugs.

When the bus arrived at the checkpoint, the NARCOM officers inspected the same and
made notice of the appellant. An officer asked the appellant to furnish them his identification
papers, but the appellant failed to do so. Because the appellant had a buldge near his waist, the
officer also asked that he show what the bulge could be. When they saw that such was a pouch,
the officer the noticed that he had 4 suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown packaging tape.
When they were unwrapped, they all contain hashish or marijuana. The appellant was asked to
alight the bus, as he was doing this he grabbed two travelling bags. Each contained teddy bears.
When they brought the accused to their headquarters they found that even the teddy bears were
filled with hashish. Samples from his items were taken to verify if such was marijuana and this
was proven to be true. Because of this a case was filed against the appellant, the appellant
attested that the search was an illegal search and that the illegal items were merely planted by
the officers to arrest him. The court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure is made pursuant to a lawful
warrantless arrest.

Held:
Yes, the arrest constitutes a lawful warrantless arrest. Pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5,
arrests are deemed lawful when: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense
has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

NARCOM received information regarding the transportation of prohibited drugs the same day
that the items were about to be transported. There was not enough time on the part of NARCOM
to obtain a search warrant. When the accused was search he was in the act of transporting illegal
drugs, such is an offense actually being committed. The search emanates from the information
provided by the informant coupled with the failure of the appellant to present his passport when
asked to do so. He was caught in flagrante delicto, thus when he was search such was incident to
a lawful warrantless arrest. The items therefore, may be admissible in court.

9. People v. Chua. 171une 1999


Because of the rampant smuggling of firearms and contraband, the Chief of Police of Banoctan
Police Station of La Union, Jim Lagasca Sid started patrolling the coastline of Bacnotan along
with the other officers. Barangay Captain Juan Almoite then called them to inform them of a
suspicious speedboat approaching the area. When the man alighted, he was seen holding a
strawbag. When the officers approached him, he immediately tried to run away but it was
ineffective as one of the officers was able to grab his arm. They learned that the man does not
understand English, and Filipino and was probably of Taiwanese descent. They tried to
communicate with him, using sign language to permit them to open the bag. When they searched
his bag, they found packets containing yellowish crystalline substances. He was brought to the
police station where he was identified as Chua Ho San. The substance he carried were tested and
were found be shabu. The appellant was charged with transportation of prohibited drugs,
violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425. Chua argued that the items found in his
possession were fruits of the poisonous tree because it was an illegal arrest.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure conducted under the facts of the
case at bar constitute a valid exemption from the warrant requirement.

Held:
No, because there is no probable cause. Before a person may be apprehended there should
have been compelling reasons to subject him to arrest. Merely walking while carrying a straw
bag is not an overt manifestation of a criminal act; nor was it substantial to support the existence
of probable cause. Reliable information cannot also raise the issue of probable cause as it alone,
does not manifest an actual commission of an illegal act. Chua Ho San is therefore, acquitted of
the crime charged.

10. People v. Salcedo, June 17. 1997


On June 20, 1988, the appellants went to the house of Edwin Cortes and the victim, Honorio
Aparejado. They made the two lie on the ground where they were hogtied and were brought near
a creek. Aparejado was shot by appellant Salcedo twice, and was then hacked by the same. All
the appellants then hacked the victim and took out his liver and knee cap. When the appellants
left, Cortes ran away and told the incident to the authorities by identifying Salcedo and Calderon
as two of the principals to the commission of the crime. The police was able to arrest six of the
accused, namely: Manalpaz, Cortes, Esquillona Jr., Laurio, Banculo and Sual. All were arrested
without a warrant of arrest and were merely arrested by reason of them being suspects to the
crime. However, all of the appellants contended that they were not the perpetrators of the crime.
Banculo, Sual Jr. and Laurio claim that they were maltreated and forced to sign statements
prepared by the police investigator without assistance of counsel. This was admitted by the
police investigator himself during the trial.

Issue: Whether or not the appellants were denied due process.

Held:
Yes, they were denied due process. Under Section 12, par. 3, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution, confessions obtained without being told of his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel is inadmissible as evidence. Hence, whether this admission is judicial or extra-judicial it
will have no bearing in this court as the constitutional rights of a person should be gravely
observed at every stage of criminal investigation, prosecution and judgment. Hence, the
confessions of Banculo, Sual Jr, and Laurio are clearly inadmissible, and therefore inadequate to
prove their participation in the commission of the crime.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi