Warrantless Arrest

1. X, common-law wife of accused Y, sobbing, went running from her residence, just
some thirty meters away, to the house of Barangay Captain Z, complaining that accused Y
struck her on the cheek with the butt of a revolver, causing her to bleed, and that accused Y
threatened to shoot her with a gun. The Barangay Captain, a retired veteran police officer,
accompanied X to the latter’s residence to investigate, but on their way they met accused Y
on the road. Thereupon, Barangay Captain Z confronted accused Y about the complaint of
his common-law wife X, but Y did not say anything nor deny it. The Barangay Captain,
noticing an object bulging in Y‘s waistline underneath his T-shirt, and believing that it was
the gun he used to injure X and to threaten her with death, frisked Y and grabbed the object
which turned out to be a .38 caliber paltik revolver. The Barangay Captain inquired whether
accused had a license to possess or permit to carry the gun, and when the latter answered
in the negative, the Barangay Captain arrested him and confiscated the firearm. From the
record of the local PNP, it was ascertained that the subject revolver was not registered or
licensed in the name of accused Y.
Was the arrest of accused Y without warrant lawful pursuant to Section 5(a) of Rule
of 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure? Were the search conducted and seizure
of the gun likewise lawful without a search warrant pursuant to Section 12 of Rule 126?
Explain. (1996, #13)

Answer:
The arrest of the accused Y without warrant was lawful pursuant to Section 5 (b), not
(a) of Rule 113, because an offense had in fact just been committed and Barangay Captain Z
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that Y had committed it. When Z, accompanied
by the complainant X, met Y on the road and confronted him on the complaint of X, Y did not
say anything nor deny it. That was sufficient ground for Z to arrest Y and search him. Hence,
the search and seizure of the gun was lawful without a search warrant under Section 12 of
Rule 126.

2. What is a Terry search (or so-called “stop and frisk”)? Is it justified under existing
law and jurisprudence? Explain. (1995, #1)

Answer:
A Terry search is a stop-and-search without a warrant. It is justified when conducted
by police officers on the basis of prior confidential information which were reasonably
corroborated by other attendant matters.

3. Bener was the driver of the car that the police searched and from where they
seized a rifle and a number of shells. Bener assails the legality of the search and seizure on
the ground that he is not the owner of the car nor of the seized items.
Rule on Bener’s contention. (1994, #18)

Answer:
Bener’s contention is not correct. The mere fact that he is not the owner of the car
nor of the seized items does not have any effect on the legality of the search. If Bener is
accused of illegal possession of firearms, his defense would be that he is only the driver of
the car and he knows nothing of the seized items, and if the seizure of the items was made
without a search warrant, he can say that they were illegally obtained and cannot be
admissible in court.

4. a) May a person be arrested without arrant?

Answer:
A person may be arrested without warrant in the following cases:
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 bee committed and the has personal knowledge
of the fact 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

b) May a house be searched without a search warrant?

How about a person, may he be searched without warrant? Explain. (1988, # 20)

Answer:
 2

A house may not be searched without a warrant in view of the constitutional

prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizure.
However, a person who has lawfully been arrested may be searched without a
warrant, inasmuch as the search is incidental to a lawful arrest.
Alternative Answer:
A house may be searched without a search warrant:
a) with the consent of the owner
b) when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest but the scope shall be limited to
the area where the arrestee can reach for a weapon or for evidence in order to destroy it
c) when the object to be seized is within plain view of the arresting officer and
possession thereof is illegal.

5. A was killed by B during a quarrel over a hostess in a nightclub. Two days after the
incident, and upon complaint of the widow of A, the police arrested B without a warrant of
arrest and searched his house without a search warrant.
a. Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which was seized during the search of the
house of B, be admitted in evidence?

Answer:
No. the gun seized during the search of the house of B without a search warrant is
not admissible in evidence. Moreover, the search was not an incident to a lawful arrest of a
person under Section 12 of Rule 126.

b) Is the arrest of B legal?

Answer:
No. A warrantless arrest requires that the crime has in fact just been committed and
the police arresting has personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has
committed it. Here, the crime has not just been committed since a period of two days had
already lapsed, and the police arresting has no such personal knowledge because he was
not present when the incident happened.

c) Under the circumstances, can B be convicted of homicide?(1997, #8)

Answer:
Yes. The gun is not indispensable in the conviction of A because the court may rely on
testimonial or other evidence.

6. The Barangay captain reported to the police that X was illegally keeping in his
house in the Barangay an armalite M 16 rifle. On the strength of that information, the police
conducted a search of the house of X and indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized
the rifle and brought X to the police station. During the investigation, he voluntarily signed a
sworn statement that he was possessing said rifle without license or authority to possess,
and a waiver of right to counsel. During the trial of X for illegal possession of firearm, the
prosecution submitted in evidence the rifle, sworn statement and waiver of right to counsel.
Individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:
a) Rifle (1998, #17)

Answer:
The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was seized without a proper search
warrant. A warrantless search is not justified. There was time to secure a search warrant.

Defendant Provincial Fiscal ordered the motor launch subject of an information for
robbery to be seized and impound without any warrant, the same being the corpus delicti of
the crime. Was the seizure justified? Reason. (1976, #10)
Answer:
No. The Provincial Fiscal had no authority to order the seizure of the motor launch
without any warrant, even if said property was the corpus delicti of the crime for which an
information for robbery has been filed. Under the old Constitution, only a judge had the
power to issue search warrants. (Under the new Constitution, a judge or such other
responsible officers as may be authorized by law may issue search warrants.)