Q-1:

Is arrest a necessary part of criminal proceeding? What is its purpose?

Yes. An arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. A person is arrested for a specific and definite purpose—to make him answer
for the commission of an offense.

Q-2: What are the laws that govern arrest warrants (AR)?

Sec. 2. Of Article III of the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures 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.

Q-3: What are the types of Arrests?

Warrant of arrests issued by the judge

Lawful warrantless arrest:

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.

Q-4: State the privilege of members of congress as far as arrest is concerned? Does this legislative
privilege mean immunity from suit?

Sec. 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“A senator or member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than
six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session…”

The privilege will not apply when the offense is punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years even
if Congress is in session. It will also not apply if Congress is NOT in session.

Q-5: Who are authorized to issue warrants of arrest?

Judges
> If issued by the RTC,
1. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
2. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause.
3. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the
accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the MTC judge who conducted
the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to
section 7 of this Rule.
o Pangay v. Ganay modified this rule by providing that investigating judges’ power to order the arrest
of the accused is limited to instances where there is necessity for placing him in custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice

4. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor
to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the
court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of information.
5. If the warrant of arrest is issued by the MTC and if the preliminary investigation was
conducted by the prosecutor, the same procedure as above is followed

Q-6: What are the parameters for the judge’s issuance of a warrant of arrest?

(1) Requisites for arrest warrant issued by a RTC judge under Sec. 5, Rule 112:
(a) Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information
(b) The judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
(c) If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest
(d) In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause
1)The judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice; and
2)The issue must be resolved by the court within 30 days from the filing of the complaint of
information.

Q-7: What is judicial determination of probable cause? How does it differ from determination of
probable cause in the PI stage?

In determining probable cause, judge must:

(1) Personally examine witness

(2) Witness must be under oath

(3) Examination must be reduced to writing (Luna vs. Plaza)

à In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer

There is a distinction between the objective of determining probable cause as done by the
prosecutor and that done by the judge—the prosecutor determines it for the purpose of filing
the complaint or information; while the judge determines it for the purpose of issuing a warrant of
arrest to determine whether there is a necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice

> Since the objectives are different, the judge shouldn't rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in
finding probable cause to justify the issuance of warrant of arrest

> He must decide independently and must have supporting evidence other than the prosecutor’s bare
report

(1) It is the judge alone who determines the probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest. It is
not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain (People vs. Inting, 187 SCRA 788).
Distinguish probable cause of fiscal from that of a judge
(1) The determination by the prosecutor of probable cause is for the purpose of either filing an
information in court or dismissing the charges against the respondent, which is an executive function.
The determination by the judge of probable cause begins only after the prosecutor has filed the
information in court and the latter‘s determination of probable cause is for the purpose of issuing an
arrest warrant against the accused, which is judicial function (People vs. CA, 301 SCRA 475).
(2)Probable cause to hold a person for trial refers to the finding of the investigating prosecutor after the
conduct of a preliminary investigation, that there is sufficient ground to hold a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for
trial. Based on such finding, the investigating prosecutor files the corresponding complaint or
information in the competent court against the accused. The determination of probable cause to issue a
warrant of arrest is a judicial function. A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or
she believes honestly that there is no probable cause for doing so

Q-8: What is meant by personal determination of probable cause by the judge?

The words “personal determination” in the Constitution does not thereby mean that judges are obliged
to conduct the personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses themselves. To require thus
would be to unduly laden them with preliminary examinations and investigations of criminal complaints
instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before them. Rather, what is emphasized
merely is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the
existence of probable cause. To this end, he may:

a.) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding
the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or

b.) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.
Q-9: Once a judge dismisses a case for lack of probable cause, does res judicata set in?

The doctrine of res judicata provides that the judgment in a first case is final as to the claim or demand
in controversy, between the parties and those privy with them, not only as to every matter which was
offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter
which must have been offered for that purpose and all matters that could have been adjudged in that
case.

The rationale for this principle is that a party should not be vexed twice concerning the same
cause. Indeed, res judicata is a fundamental concept in the organization of every jural society, for not
only does it ward off endless litigation, it ensures the stability of judgment and guards against
inconsistent decisions on the same set of facts.

Res judicata applies when four essential requisites are present: (1) the former judgment or order must
be final; (2) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration
of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case; (3 ) it must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be,
between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.

A judgment or order is said to be on the merits of the case when it determines the rights and liabilities
of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings or issues presented for trial. It is
not required that a trial, actual hearing, or argument on the facts of the case ensued, for as long as the
parties had the full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions.

For instance a dismissal on the ground of improper venue, though not strictly a jurisdictional matter,
may be considered as lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and hence does not operate
as an adjudication on the merits. Similarly, a dismissal based on want of capacity to sue is not a bar to
another action after the incapacity is removed; a dismissal because the action was prematurely brought,
will not bar another action for the same cause when the right of action becomes complete; or a
judgment of dismissal on the ground of formal defects or errors in the complaint which do not touch on
the merits of the controversy is no bar to the previous pleads second suit wherein the defects in the
previous pleading are cured or obviated

Q-10: What is the rule on arrest in Summary Procedure?

Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to
appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by
a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.

WHAT IS SUMMARY PROCEDURE?

Procedure wherein the court decides the case through the evidence and affidavits presented by the
parties
Q-11: At what instance when issue regarding irregularity of arrest be raised, what would be the effect
in case of failure to raise it?

It must be before his arraignment. “The records show that appellant never objected to the irregularity of
his arrest before his arraignment. In fact, this is the first time that he raises the issue. Considering this
lapse, coupled with his active participation in the trial of the case, we must abide with jurisprudence
which dictates that appellant, having voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, is
deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may
have attended his arrest. The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his
person. Appellants warrantless arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his acquittal.”

Q-12: How should arrest be carried out?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Q-13: What are the duties of officers in the execution of the warrant?

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.

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.

Q-14: When is it allowed for officers making the arrest to break in into building and enclosure, and
when is it allowed to break out from building and enclosure?

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.

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.

Q-15: Who are authorized to implement the warrant of arrest?

Arresting officers.

Q-16: What are the grounds for the quashal of Warrant of Arrest?

A warrant of arrest may be quashed on the ground that it was issued without probable cause. In Allado
vs. Diokno (G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994), the Supreme Court declared that "probable cause for an
arrest or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by
the person sought to be arrested."

In the same case, the Supreme Court found no probable cause in the issuance of the warrant of arrest
considering the following circumstances:

(1) The accounts of the complainant and his witnesses were incredible, laden with inconsistencies and
improbabilities;

(2) The evidence thus far presented was utterly insufficient;

(3) The judge did not personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and his
witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts;

(4) Instead, the judge merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed;
and

(5) The prosecutors themselves have similarly misappropriated, if not abused, their discretion to
determine probable cause.

The Supreme Court said:
"Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by showing that a trial judge subjectively
believes that he has good grounds for his action. Good faith is not enough. If subjective good faith
alone were the test, the constitutional protection would be demeaned and the people would be
"secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" only in the fallible discretion of the judge."

Quashal of warrant of arrest

à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed

c. Motion to quash information

à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed

à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the accused

à Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court would
be deemed a submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it lacked
over the person

Q-17: Are all arrests be made by virtue of an arrest warrant?

NO. 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.

Q-18: Is there an instance when arrest is superfluous?

Yes. A warrant of arrest is not necessary in the following instances:

1. When the accused is already in detention issued by the MTC
2. When the accused was arrested by virtue of a lawful arrest without warrant
3. When the penalty is of a fine only
4. Those covered by a summary procedure