You are on page 1of 7

Rule 113 Arrest

A. Definition
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. How made
An arrest is made by anactualrestraintofapersontobearrested,orbyhissubmissionto
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.

b. When made
c. Time of making arrest
An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.

d. Method of arrest;
By officer with warrant - Rule 113 Sec. 7
By officer without warrant - Rule 113 Sec. 8
By private person - Rule 113 Sec. 9

e. Who may arrest
Under Sec. 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, 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. This is known as an
arrest in flagrante delicto. The arrest made by a private person, under the circumstances provided
for under the Rules, is usually called citizens arrest.
f. Requisites of a valid warrant of arrest
g. Cases:
Luz vs People 667 SCRA 421
Bonongan vs Pena 620 SCRA 106, GR No. 143591

B. Determine of Probable Cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest
a. Distinguish probable cause of fiscal from that of a judge
b. Cases:
Ocampo vs Abando GR No. 176830, February 11, 2014
AAA vs Carbonell 524 SCRA 496
People of the Phils vs Grey GR No 180109
People of the Phils vs Gabo GR No 161083
Anlud Metal Recycling Corp. vs Ang GR No. 182157 Aug. 17, 2015

C. Warrantless Arrest; when lawful
a. In Flagrante Delicto Rule
b. Hot Pursuit Rule
c. Escape Rule
d. Absconding Rule
e. Cases:
Luz vs People 667 SCRA 421
Antiqulera vs People 712 SCRA Dec 11, 2013
People vs Vasquez 714 SCRA Jan. 15, 2014
People vs Gadiana GR No 184761
People vs Ng Yik Bun GR No. 180452
People vs Uyboco GR No. 178039
People vs Del Rosario 305 SCRA 740
People vs Olivares 299 SCRA 634
People vs Jayson 282 SCRA 166
People vs Edano July 7, 2014
People vs Villareal March 18, 2013
People vs Cogaed July 30, 2014
People vs Collado 698 SCRA 628
People vs Andaya GR No. 183700 Oct. 13, 2014
Commenciante vs People GR No. 205926 July 22, 2015
People vs Laguio Jr. 518 SCRA 393
Pestilos vs Generoso 739 SCRA 337 Nov. 10, 2014

D. Procedure after the arrest


a. Effect of Illegality of Arrest
b. Time to question illegality of Arrest
c. Cases:
People vs Yau GR No. 208170 Aug. 20, 2014

Facts:W hileALASTAIRJOSEPHONGLINGSWAMwasonboardawhiteToyotataxicabwithplate
numberPVD115beingdrivenbytheaccusedPetrusYaua.k.a."John"and"Ricky"andthetaxicab
wastravellingalongEpifanioDelosSantos(EDSA)Avenue,hesuddenlyfellunconsciousandupon
regainingconsciousnesshewasalreadyhandcuffedandinchainsinsideahouse,wherehewaskeptfor
twentytwo(22)days,whichhouseisownedbyaccusedSusanaYauySumogbaandwhilethereinhe
wasmaltreated.
AfterthePoliceAntiCrimeandEmergencyResponseTaskForce(PACER)receivedinformationthata
taxiwithplatenumberPVD115wasvictimizingpassengers,memberswereorderedtolookforToyota
CorollaWhiteTaxicabwithPlateNo.PVD115.Duringtheoperationtheywereabletochanceupon
thesaidvehicle.Thus,theyfollowedit,flaggeditdownandapproachedthedriver.Whenofficersask
forhisnameandsinceheansweredthathewasPetrusYau,aBritishnational,theyaskedhimforhis
driverslicenseandcarregistrationbutappellantwasnotabletoproduceany.Whenshownapictureof
privatecomplainantandaskedifheknewhim,heansweredthatthemanisbeingkeptinhishouse.He
wasimmediatelyinformedthathewasbeingplacedunderarrestforkidnappingprivatecomplainant
AlastairOnglingswamafterbeinginformedofhisconstitutionalrights.
Appellantledtheteamtohishouseandafteropeningthegateofhisresidence,hewasledbacktothe
policecar.TherestofthemembersofPACERproceededinsidethehouseandfoundamansittingon
thefloorchainedandhandcuffed.ThemanlateridentifiedhimselfasAlastairOnglingswam.

Issue:WhetherornotACCUSEDAPPELLANTWASILLEGALLYARRESTEDANDASSUCH,
THEPIECESOFOBJECTEVIDENCEALLEGEDLYSEIZEDAREINADMISSIBLE.

Held:No.Theaccusedappellantsactofquestioningthelegalityoftheirwarrantlessarrestsisjust
theirlastditchefforttoexculpatethemselvesfromanycriminalculpability.Thistoomustfail.
Anyobjectiontotheprocedurefollowedinthematteroftheacquisitionbyacourtofjurisdictionover
thepersonoftheaccusedmustbeopportunelyraisedbeforeheentershispleaotherwise,theobjection
isdeemedwaived.Theaccusedappellantsneverobjectedtoorquestionedthelegalityoftheir
warrantlessarrestsortheacquisitionofjurisdictionbytheRTCovertheirpersonsbeforetheyentered
theirrespectivepleastothekidnappingforransomcharge.Consideringthislapseandcoupledwith
theirfullandactiveparticipationinthetrialofthecase,accusedappellantsweredeemedtohave
waivedanyobjectiontotheirwarrantlessarrests.Theaccusedappellantsvoluntarilysubmittedtothe
jurisdictionoftheRTCtherebycuringwhateverdefectsthatmighthaveattendedtheirarrest.Itbears
stressingthatthelegalityofthearrestaffectsonlythejurisdictionofthecourtovertheirpersons.Their
warrantlessarrestscannot,bythemselves,bethebasesoftheiracquittal.

People vs Velasco 710 SCRA 784 Nov 27, 2013

Facts:Velascowasarraignedforthetwochargesofrapeandonechargeofactsoflasciviousnessto
whichheenteredapleaofnotguiltyonallcharges.Hewaslaterarraignedforthethirdchargeofrape
towhichhelikewisepleaded"notguilty."
TheRTCfoundappellantRobertoVelascoguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofthreecounts
ofrapeunderArticle266AoftheRPC.VelascoelevatedthecasetotheCAwhichdeniedhisappeal
andaffirmedwithmodificationthetrialcourtjudgment.Velascothenforthefirsttimeraisedthe
legalityofhisarrest.

Issue:W hetherornottheaccusedisestoppedfromassailinganyirregularityofhisarrest

Ruling:Yes.Jurisprudencetellsusthatanaccusedisestoppedfromassailinganyirregularityofhis
arrestifhefailstoraisethisissueortomoveforthequashaloftheinformationagainsthimonthis
groundbeforearraignment,thus,anyobjectioninvolvingawarrantofarrestortheprocedurebywhich
thecourtacquiredjurisdictionofthepersonoftheaccusedmustbemadebeforeheentershisplea
otherwise,theobjectionisdeemedwaived.
Nevertheless,evenifappellantswarrantlessarrestwereproventobeinvalid,suchascenariowould
stillnotprovidesalvationtoappellantscausebecausetheillegalarrestofanaccusedisnotsufficient
causeforsettingasideavalidjudgmentrendereduponasufficientcomplaintafteratrialfreefrom
error.

Rebellion vs People 623 SCRA 343 July 5, 2010

Facts:OnJuly27,2000,theMayorsActionCommand(MAC)teamofMandaluyongwitnessed
petitionerhandingapieceofplasticsachettohiscompanionClaritoYanson.Suspectingthatthatthe
substancewasshabu,teammembersPO3GarciaandPO3Sotomayoralightedfromtheir
motorcyclesandapproachedthem.Claritowasnotabletocompletelygetholdoftheplasticsachet
becauseoftheirarrival.UponinquirybyPO3Garciawhatpetitionerwasholding,thelatterpresented
threestripsofaluminumfoilwhichtheformerconfiscated.Thereandthen,petitionerandClaritowere
apprehendedandbroughttotheCIDforinvestigation.

TheRTCfoundhimguiltyofpossessionofillegaldrugswhichtheCAaffirmed.Petitionerchallenges
thelegalityofhiswarrantlessarrestbyassertingthatatthetimehewasapprehended,hewasnot
committingorattemptingtocommitanoffense.Petitionerarguesthatsincehisarrestwasillegal,the
eventualsearchonhispersonwasalsounlawful.Thus,theillicititemsconfiscatedfromhimare
inadmissibleinevidenceforbeingviolativeofhisconstitutionalrightagainstunreasonablesearches
andseizure.

Issue:Whetherthewarrantlessarrestwasvalid.

Ruling:T heSCruledintheaffirmative.ButtheSCmadeitcleartheevenifthewarrantwasnotvalid,
itwouldstillprevailbecausepetitionerdidnotfileamotiontoquashregardingthisbeforeenteringhis
plea.

NowhereintherecordsdidtheCourtfindanyobjectioninterposedbypetitionertotheirregularityof
hisarrestpriortohisarraignment.Ithasbeenconsistentlyruledthatanaccusedisestoppedfrom
assailinganyirregularityofhisarrestifhefailstoraisethisissueortomoveforthequashalofthe
informationagainsthimonthisgroundbeforearraignment.Anyobjectioninvolvingawarrantofarrest
ortheprocedurebywhichthecourtacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonoftheaccusedmustbemade
beforeheentershispleaotherwise,theobjectionisdeemedwaived.
Inthiscase,petitionerwasdulyarraigned,enteredanegativepleaandactivelyparticipatedduringthe
trial.Thus,heisdeemedtohavewaivedanyperceiveddefectinhisarrestandeffectivelysubmitted
himselftothejurisdictionofthecourttryinghiscase.Also,alawfularrestwithoutawarrantmaybe
madeunderanyofthefollowingcircumstances:
Sec.5.Arrestwithoutwarrantwhenlawful.Apeaceofficeroraprivatepersonmay,withouta
warrant,arrestaperson:(a)When,inhispresence,thepersontobearrestedhascommitted,isactually
committing,orisattemptingtocommitanoffense(b)Whenanoffensehasjustbeencommittedand
hehasprobablecausetobelievebasedonpersonalknowledgeoffactsorcircumstancesthattheperson
tobearrestedhascommitteditand(c)Whenthepersontobearrestedisaprisonerwhohasescaped
fromapenalestablishmentorplacewhereheisservingfinaljudgmentoristemporarilyconfinedwhile
hiscaseispending,orhasescapedwhilebeingtransferredfromoneconfinementtoanother.

Ourownreviewdisclosessufficientevidencethatthewarrantlessarrestofpetitionerwaseffected
underSection5(a),orthearrestofasuspectinflagrantedelicto.TheMACteamwitnessedpetitioner
handingapieceofplasticsachettoClarito.

People vs Mendoza 700 SCRA 42, June 25, 2013

Facts:PO2delaCruztestifiedthatonMay15,2004atabout8:15intheevening,theirconfidential
informantarrivedattheirofficereportingthatacertainaliasMonica,whoturnedouttobe
accusedappellant,wasinvolvedintherampantsaleofillegaldrugsalongPNRSouthCompound,
Brgy.PiodelPilar,MakatiCity.TheirActionOfficer,SPO4ArsenioMangulabnanformedabuybust
teamledbySPO1JoseMagallanestoeffectthearrestofaccusedappellant.PO2delaCruzwas
designatedasposeurbuyer.HewastaskedtobuyPhp200.00worthofshabufromaccusedappellant.
Theteamthenproceededtotheareaofoperationtoconductthebuybustoperation.
Uponarrivalatthesaidareatheinformantaccompaniedhimtowhereaccusedappellantwas.Therest
oftheteampositionedthemselvesstrategicallywithintheperimeter.Thereaftertheinformant
introducedhimtoaccusedappellantasapersoninneedofshabu.Atthisinstance,heconveyedhis
intentionsofbuyingshabutoaccusedappellantthengavethebuybustmoneytoaccusedappellant
whointurn,gaveoneplasticsachetcontainingsuspectedshabutohim.Thetransactionhavingbeen
consummated,hethenmadeamotionofgivingahighfivetoaccusedappellantwhichwasthe
prearrangedsignalfortherestofthebackupteam.OperationsbackupPO2Sangelthenapproached
theareaoftransaction,introducedhimselfasapoliceofficerandplacedaccusedappellantunder
arrest.Accusedappellantwasapprisedofthenatureofthearrestandofherconstitutionalrights.

Issue:Whetherornotthereisanunlawfularrestasnovalidwarranthavebeensecuredfirstbefore
arrestingtheaccusedappellant.

Held:No
Thewarrantlessarrestconductedonaccusedappellantwasvalid.Section5,Rule113oftheRulesof
CriminalProcedureenumeratesthesituationswhenapersonmaybearrestedwithoutawarrant,thus:

"SEC.5.Arrestwithoutwarrantwhenlawful.Apeaceofficeroraprivatepersonmay,withouta
warrant,arrestaperson:

1. When,inhispresence,thepersontobearrestedhascommitted,isactuallycommitting,oris
attemptingtocommitanoffense
2. Whenanoffensehasjustbeencommittedandhehasprobablecausetobelievebasedon
personalknowledgeoffactsorcircumstancesthatthepersontobearrestedhascommittedit
and
3. Whenthepersontobearrestedisaprisonerwhohasescapedfromapenalestablishmentor
placewhereheisservingfinaljudgementoristemporarilyconfinedwhilehiscaseispending,
orhasescapedwhilebeingtransferredfromoneconfinementtoanother."
Paragraph(a)ofSection5,iscommonlyknownasaninflagrantedelictoarrest.Forawarrantlessarrest
ofanaccusedcaughtinflagrantedelictotobevalid,tworequisitesmustconcur:(1)thepersontobe
arrestedmustexecuteanovertactindicatingthathehasjustcommitted,isactuallycommitting,oris
attemptingtocommitacrimeand(2)suchovertactisdoneinthepresenceorwithintheviewofthe
arrestingofficer.[4]

Intheinstantcase,theprosecutioncompletelyandfullyestablishedthataccusedappellantwasarrested
inflagrantedelicto.

Atanyrate,accusedappellantfailedtoraiseanyobjectiontothemannerofherarrestbefore
arraignment.Infact,sheparticipatedinthetrial.Sheeventookthewitnessstandandtestifiedinher
ownbehalf.Sheisnowestoppedfromassailingthelegalityofherarrestasshewaivedanyirregularity,
ifany,thatmayhavetaintedherarrest.

Villanueva vs People GR No. 199042 Nov. 17, 2014

Facts: A complaint was filed by Bryan Resco against Danilo Villanueva accusedappellant for
allegedly shooting the former. Thereafter, the police officers together with Resco proceeded to
Villanuevas house and invited him tothepolicestation.There,hewassubjectedtoasearchand,inthe
process,aplasticsachetofshabuwasrecoveredfromVillanuevaspants.
Villanueva was charged with a violation of Section 11 Article 2 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive
DangerousDrugsActof2002,forhavinginhispossession0.63gramsofshabu.
In his defense, Villanueva testified that at the time of the incidence, he was at home when the police
officersarrivedandinvitedhimtothepolicestationwherehewasfriskedanddetained.
The RTC convicted Villanueva and the CA affirmed. Villanueva claims that his arrest does not fall
within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest, hence, to invite him to the precinct without any
warrant is illegal. The evidence obtained is consequently, inadmissible. Nevertheless, records reveal
thataccusedappellantneverobjectedtotheirregularityofhisarrestbeforehisarraignment.Hepleaded
not guilty upon arraignment. He actively participated in the trial of the case. Thus, heisconsideredas
one who had properlyandvoluntarilysubmittedhimselftothejurisdictionofthetrialcourtandwaived
hisrighttoquestionthevalidityofhisarrest.

Issue:W
hetherornotwaiverofillegalarrestdeemedwaivedofillegalsearch

Held:N o.
Accusedappellant was arrested without a warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, lays down the basic rules onlawfulwarrantlessarrestseitherbyapeaceofficeror
aprivateperson,asfollows:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant,arrestaperson:
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attemptingtocommitanoffense
2. 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
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 ispending,
orhasescapedwhilebeingtransferredfromoneconfinementtoanother.
The circumstances that transpiredbetweenaccusedappellantandthearrestingofficershownoneofthe
above that would make the warrantless arrest lawful. The warrantless search conducted is not among
thoseallowedbylaw.
A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a waiver of an illegal search. Records have established
that both the arrest and the search weremadewithoutawarrant.Whiletheaccusedhasalreadywaived
his righttocontestthelegalityofhisarrest,heisnotdeemedtohaveequallywaivedhisrighttocontest
thelegalityofthesearch.
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a warrantless search can be conducted. These
searches include: (1) search of a moving vehicle (2) seizure in plain view (3) customs search (4)
waiver or consented search (5) stopandfrisk situation(6)searchincidentaltoalawfularrestand(7)
exigentandemergencycircumstance.


E. Rights of Person Arrested (RA 7438)
a. Cases:
People vs Guillen 710 SCRA 533 Nov. 25, 2013

Facts: Around 12 midnight, AAA was playing cards inside her room on the second floor of a
twostoreyhousewhilewaitingforhercommonlawhusbandtoarrive.Momentarily,someoneknocked
at the door. When AAA opened the door, appellant Jonas Guillen y Atienza, who washerneighbor,
entered the room and suddenly poked a balisong on her neck. Appellant then turned off the lights,
removed his clothes, placed himself on top of AAA, and inserted his penis inside her private parts.
Aftertherapewasconsummated,appellantstoodupandcasuallylefttheroom.
AAA immediately went out and sought assistance from her sisterinlaw. After being told of the
incident, AAAs sisterinlaw contacted the police. When the responding police officers arrived,
appellant,whowasreadilyidentifiedbyAAAsincehewasherneighbor,wasimmediatelyarrested

Issue: Whether ornotthesilenceoftheaccusedappellantatthepolicestationimmediatelyafterarrest
impliedadmissionofguilt.

Held: No. It should be borne in mind that when appellant was brought to the police station, he was
already a suspect to the crime of rape. As such, he was already under custodial investigation. Section
12,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionexplicitlyprovides,viz:
Any person under investigation for the commission ofanoffenseshallhavetherighttobeinformedof
his right to remain silent and to havecompetentandindependentcounselpreferablyofhisownchoice.
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.Theserightscannot
bewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.
Clearly, when appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of AAA at the police
station, he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. At that stage, his silence
should not betakenagainsthim.Thus,itwaserroronthepartofthetrialcourttostatethatappellants
silence should be deemed as implied admission of guilt. In fact, this right cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be
inadmissibleinevidence.

People vs Chavez GR No 207950 Sept. 22, 2014

CustodialInvestigationRepublicActNo.7438expandedthedefinitionofcustodial
investigationtoincludethepracticeofissuinganinvitationtoapersonwhoisinvestigatedin
connectionwithanoffenseheissuspectedtohavecommitted,withoutprejudicetotheliabilityofthe
invitingofficerforanyviolationoflaw.Thismeansthateventhosewhovoluntarilysurrendered
beforeapoliceofficermustbeapprisedoftheirM irandarights.Forone,thesamepressuresofa
custodialsettingexistinthisscenario.Chavezisalsobeingquestionedbyaninvestigatingofficerina
policestation.Asanadditionalpressure,hemayhavebeencompelledtosurrenderbyhismotherwho
accompaniedhimtothepolicestation.

Facts:WhenPeamante(witness)arrivedhomefromwork,around2:45am,hesawapersonwearing
ablack,longsleevedtshirtandblackpantsandholdingsomethingwhileleavingthehouse/parlorof
ElmerDuqueakaBarbie(victim).Therewasalightattheleftsideofthehouse/parlorofBarbie,his
favoritehaircutter,soPeamantestatedthathewasabletoseethefaceofChavezandtheclotheshe
waswearing.

Thefollowingday,Barbiewasfounddead,duetostabwound,intheparlorandtheplacewasin
disarray.Accompaniedbyhismother,Chavezvoluntarilysurrenderedatthepolicestation.Chavezwas
then22yearsold.SPO3Casimiroinformedthemoftheconsequencesinexecutingawrittenstatement
withouttheassistanceofalawyer.However,Chavezsmotherstillgaveherstatement,subscribedby
AdministrativeOfficerAlexFrancisco.ShealsosurrenderedtwocellularphonesownedbyBarbieand
abaseballcapownedbyChavez.

Thenextday,PeamantewasagainsummonedtoidentifythepersonhesawsawleavingBarbies
house/parlorthatearlymorningofOctober28,2008,Peamanteimmediatelypointedtoandidentified
Chavezandthereafterexecutedhiswrittenstatement.Chavezwaschargedwithrobberywith
homicide.

ThetrialcourtfoundChavezguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide.
TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourt'sdecision.

Issue:W hetherornotChavezmayavailhisrightsevenifhevoluntarilysurrendered.

Held:Yes.RepublicActNo.7438expandedthedefinitionofcustodialinvestigationto"includethe
practiceofissuinganinvitationtoapersonwhoisinvestigatedinconnectionwithanoffenseheis
suspectedtohavecommitted,withoutprejudicetotheliabilityoftheinvitingofficerforanyviolation
oflaw.
Thismeansthateventhosewhovoluntarilysurrenderedbeforeapoliceofficermustbeapprisedof
theirMirandarights.Forone,thesamepressuresofacustodialsettingexistinthisscenario.Chavezis
alsobeingquestionedbyaninvestigatingofficerinapolicestation.Asanadditionalpressure,hemay
havebeencompelledtosurrenderbyhismotherwhoaccompaniedhimtothepolicestation.

You might also like