CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(Rules 110-127 of the Rules of Court)
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.
MODES OF ARREST
1. arrest by virtue of a warrant
2. arrest without a warrant under statutorily provided exceptional circumstances
REQUISITE FOR A VALID WARRANT OF ARREST OR SEARCH AND SEIZURE: Arrest and
Search and Seizure is legal and valid if a warrant of arrest has been issued under the following
circumstances:
1) issued upon Probable cause;
2) Determined Personally by the judge;
3) after Examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce; and
4) Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized;
5) in Connection with a specific Offense or crime;
*** Probable cause as to the issuance of warrant of arrest – is defined “as those consist of a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances that in themselves sufficient to
warrant a cautious man in believing accused to be committing the offense or to be guilty of the
offense.”
*** This probable cause must not be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the
complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay
Determined personally by the judge;
Who may Issue:
GENERAL RULE: The provision is self-executing. The provision speaks of “judges” which
mean judges of all levels. This power may not be limited mush less withdrawn by Congress. The
power to determine is a function of the judge and such power lies in the judge alone (People vs.
Inting 187 SCRA 788)
EXCEPTION: BID Commissioner may issue warrant of arrest of an undesirable alien sought to
be deported because it is not criminal in nature and the act of deportation is an act of the State
and the BID is the agent of the State to carry out such act (Harvey vs. Santiago 162 SCRA 840)
> only to implement final order of deportation
*** This exception applies in admin. Bodies for purposes of carrying out a final finding of a
violation of a law not for the sole purpose of investigation or prosecution.
Findings of Probable Cause by Fiscal vs. Judge:
GENERAL RULE: Trial court generally rely on the findings of the fiscal as another PI conducted
by it would be time-wasting (People vs. Villanueva 110 SCRA 465)
EXCEPTION: Determination of probable cause is not a ministerial function, findings of probable
cause by the fiscal, through the judge may rely on them but it is not binding on the judge. It may
require additional evidence (Placer vs. Villanueva 126 SCRA 463)
DISTINCTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY FISCAL VS. JUDGE:
BY FISCAL
BY JUDGE
Made by the prosecutor or by the MTC Made by the judge only
judge
Executive function and in case of Judicial Function
conflict between views on
reinvestigation, fiscal
findings prevail (Crespo vs. Mogul)
Purpose of determining whether there purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest or
is a cause that would warrant the filing search warrant (Allado vs. Diokno 232 SCRA
of 192)
information against the accused
Two Kinds of General Warrant:
John Doe Warrant – warrant of arrest issued without the name in blank such that it can be enforced
against any person which is void.
General warrant – search warrant issued without any particularly on the thing to be searched and seized
which is void.
GENERAL RULE: General warrant or John Doe warrant is invalid:
EXCEPTION: It is valid when there is something personal description that will enable the officer
to identify the accused or the thing; That the person is occupying and in control of a certain
building is valid; (People vs. Veloso 48 Phil. 169)
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.
Modes of Effecting Arrest
1. By an actual restraint of the person to be arrested
2. By his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest
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.
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.
The judge issues a warrant of arrest in 2 instances:
(1) Upon the filing of the information by the prosecutor.
- In issuing this kind of warrant, the judge does not personally examine the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, but he merely evaluates personally the report and supporting
documents and other evidence adduced during the preliminary investigation and submitted to
him by the prosecutor, and if he finds probable cause on the basis thereof he issues the warrant
for the arrest of the accused.
(2) Upon application of a peace officer.
- In this kind of warrant, the judge must personally examine the applicant and the witnesses he
may produce, to find out whether there exists probable cause, otherwise the warrant issued is
null and void. He must subject the complainant and the witnesses to searching questions. The
reason for this is there is yet no evidence on record upon which he may determine the existence
of probable cause.
*** A warrant of arrest does not become stale or functus officio unlike a search warrant which is valid
only for 10 days. A warrant of arrest remains valid until arrest is effected or the warrant lifted.
*** The rule as amended no longer requires a return of the warrant of arrest but a report.
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 7 of Rule 112.
“Probable Cause” means any actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion
“Reasonable Grounds Of Suspicion” must be founded on probable cause plus good faith on the
officer that he is probable that the person committed based on actual facts i.e. circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create probable cause.
*** The ground 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.
*** The reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled “with good faith on
the part of the peace officers making the arrest.”
*** The only difference is that in in flagrante arrests, the facts constituting probable cause occur in the
presence of the arresting person, while in hot pursuit, knowledge of the facts occurred after the
commission of the crime.
*** Sec. 5(b) authorizes warrantless arrest “when an offense has in fact just been committed.”
The word “just” implies immediacy in point of time.
*** When a police officer sees the offense although at a distance or hears the disturbances
created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene and effect the arrest, such is valid. (People vs.
Sucro 195 SCRA 401)
In a citizen’s arrest, the person may be arrested and searched of his body and of his personal
effects or belongings, for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without need of a search warrant.
Sec. 6. Time of making arrest. – An arrest may be made on any day and at any time
of the day or night.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, defined – means “any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person who has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of is freedom of
action in any significant way.” (Miranda vs. Arizona)
START: The Miranda rights “begins to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken
into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements.” (People vs. de la Cruz GR No. 118866-68 September 17, 1997)
Embraced in custodial investigation:
1) invited for questioning
2) re-enactment
Not embraced in custodial investigation:
1) police line-up
2) ultraviolet ray examination
3) normal audit examination by the COA of the accountability of a public officer
PEOPLE vs. OLIVAREZ, JR. (299 SCRA 634)
Mere invitation is covered by the constitutional prohibition on warrantless arrest because it is
intended for no other reason than to conduct an investigation.
RA 7438 – custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing 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.
Presumption of regularity in the performance of duties:
*** Does not apply during in-custody investigation, nor can it prevail over the constitutional right
of the accused to be presumed innocent.
COMPONENTS OF MIRANDA RIGHTS:
1. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED:
*** Inform within the meaning of the provision is not enough that the police merely inform of
hisconstitutional right to remain silent and to counsel, and then taking statements down, the
interrogating officer must have patience in explaining these rights to him (People vs. Ramos
122 SCRA 312)
*** To inform contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the
ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle (People vs.
Nicandro 141 SCRA 289)
*** reading the accused’s constitutional right is simply not enough, the prosecution must
show that the accused understood what he read and that he understood the consequences
of his waiver (People vs. Canela 208 SCRA 842)
*** right to be informed carries with it the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator
to explain and contemplates effective communication, which results in the understanding
what is conveyed. (People vs. Austin 240 SCRA 541)
2) THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT: a guarantee against self-incrimination
3) RIGHT TO COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: it is intended to preclude the
slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false (People vs. Enanoria 209
SCRA 577)
Rights to Counsel Starts:
GENERAL RULE: Right to Counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation and police asks
questions to elicit information, confessions or admissions from the accused (Gamboa vs. Cruz
162 SCRA 642 cited in People vs. Macam 238 SCRA 306) and it continues in all stages of the
investigation until the proceeding is terminated (People vs. Layuso 175 SCRA 47)
Rationale: It is intended to help the accused at the critical stages of prosecution even before
trial where it might reduce the trial as a mere formality (People vs. Espanola GR No. 119308 April
18, 1997)
EXCEPTION:
1. Not applicable where accused is brought to the police station for identification (People vs.
Buntan 221 SCRA 421)
2. Neither applicable during the police line-up since it is not part of the custodial in-quest
(People vs. Dimaano 209 SCRA 819)
3. Nor in the conduct of paraffin test (People vs. Lamsing 248 SCRA 471)
Critical Stage of the Criminal proceedings is the
1) Custodial Investigation, Police line-up and
2) Pre-trial Proceedings where the right to assistance of counsel is indispensably needed
where the result of the two might reduce the trial as a mere formality (People vs. Espanola GR
No. 119308 April 18, 1997)
Independent Counsel cannot be a :
a) special counsel;
b) public private prosecutor;
c) counsel of the police or
d) municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused;
e) legal officer of the municipality may not defend an accused as it would result to conflict of
interest (People vs. Bandula 232 SCRA 565)
f) even a counsel who assisted the accused who was found out that he applied and have been
admitted for employment in NBI, a law enforcement agency cannot be considered an
independent counsel (People vs. Januario 267 SCRA 608)
Preferably of his Own Choice: it does not convey that the choice of lawyer is exclusive as to
preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense;
otherwise, the tempo of the C.I. is in the sole hands of the accused, nay, obstruct the
interrogation by simply selecting the lawyer who is not available (People vs. Barasina 229 SCRA
450)
*** Where counsel arrived late and was not present during the actual investigation but only
present when the accused will sign the confession is considered to be not a counsel of his
choice (People vs. Lucero 244 SCRA 425)
4) Rights may be waived except in writing and in the presence of a counsel
Waiver of Rights – Rights that may be waived:
> the right to remain silent and counsel may be waived but not the right to be informed of this
rights;
*** Confession made by the accused of his guilt before the mayor, as a confidant not as a law
enforcer, and was repeated in the presence of the media free from undue influence is an
spontaneous statement is considered a valid waiver (People vs. Andan GR No. 116437 March 3,
1997)
*** Burden of Proof of valid waiver is on the prosecution because the presumption of regular
performance of duties cannot prevail over presumption of innocence (People vs. Jara 144 SCRA
516, People vs. Taruc 157 SCRA 178)
OTHER RIGHTS:
1) 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.
*** Swearing officers should have the confessant physically examined by independent doctors
before administering the oath, to discourage attempts to secure confessions through violence
(People vs. Barros)
*** On the strength of medical evidence of the defendant’s manhandling by the police
authorities, their confessions were rejected (People vs. Cabrera 134 SCRA 362)
*** Any allegation of force, undue influence torture etc. must be proved by the defense with
clear and convincing evidence (People vs. Eglipa 174 SCRA 1 People vs. Basay 219 SCRA 404)
2) Any confession or admission obtained in the violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Doctrine of fruit of the Poisonous Tree. “once the primary source
(the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary derivative evidence (the
fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible.”
*** Before any confession as evidence is admitted by the court, there must be first strict
compliance with the constitutional rights of the accused because a confession of guilt
constitutes a formidable evidence against the accused, on the principle that no one will freely
and knowingly and voluntarily admit it unless prompted by truth and conscience particularly
when the facts could only have been known to the accused (People vs Fabro GR No. 95089
August 11, 1997)
*** The provision does not distinguish verbal or nonverbal confessions is uncounseled, it is inadmissible
as evidence (People vs. Bonola GR No. 116394 June 19, 1997)
*** Spontaneous statements made to confidant who is the mayor and repeated it to the media
is admissible (People vs. Andan)
3) The law shall provide for 1) penal and 2) civil sanctions for violations of this section
as well as 3) compensation to and 4) rehabilitation of victim of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
RA 7309, victims of unjust imprisonment, arbitrary or illegal detention or of violent crimes may
file claims for damages with the Board of Claims under DOJ;
- unjust imprisonment arbitrary or illegal detention is compensable for P1,000 each month of
imprisonment but not to exceed P10,000
- hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of wage, support or other expenses directly related to
the injury whichever is lower
- without prejudice to the right to seek other remedies under existing law
References:
Rules 110-127 of the Rules of Court
Various Criminal Procedure Reviewer (REMEDIAL NOTES 2004 -
SIGMA RHO, UST Reviewer, SLU Bar Ops etc.)
