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 attempting to commit an offense;
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 is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
4.

In hot pursuit

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 AND USE THEM AS EVIDENCE?
Yes.

The plain view doctrine is applicable to this case because there was a valid prior

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 AND USE THEM
AS EVIDENCE?
> He can confiscate them, without prejudice though 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.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF A WARRANTLESS ARREST IS ILLEGAL?

> It doesn't render void all other proceedings, including those leading to the conviction of the
accused nor can the state deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts of record point
to his culpability
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.

With the unfolding of events last week, many legal questions have cropped up and among
these is the issue of warrantless arrests. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, 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 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.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
The rationale for warrantless arrests was enunciated in the case of Valmonte vs.De Villa (1990)
where the Supreme Court held that:
To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and
tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the
mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating
their escape in many instances.
Under Section 5(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is
committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of the fact. The
offense must also be committed in is presence or within his view. (Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80
Phil. 859). This is where the terms in flagrante delicto and caught in the act find
application.
In arrests without a warrant under Section 5(b) of Rule 113, however, it is not enough that
there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A
crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been
committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been
committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of
reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. Parenthetically, it may be
observed that under the Revised Rule 113, Section 5(b), the officer making the arrest must
have personal knowledge of the ground therefor as stressed in the case of People v. Burgos.
In People vs. Mengote (G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992), the Supreme Court held that the
accused acts of merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen, do not
constitute enough basis to implement a warrantless arrest. There was apparently no offense

that had just been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempted by
the accused in the presence of the arresting officers.In this case, the Solicitor General argued
that the actual existence of an offense was not necessary as long as Mengotes acts created a
reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that
an offense had been committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it. The Court
shot down this argument stating that no offense could possibly have been suggested by a
person looking from side to side and holding his abdomen and in a place not exactly
forsaken.
In the same case, the Court added this caveat:
It would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be summarily arrested and searched just
because he is holding his abdomen, even if it be possibly because of a stomach-ache, or if a
peace officer-could clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty look on suspicion that he may
have committed a criminal act or is actually committing or attempting it. This simply cannot
be done in a free society. This is not a police state where order is exalted over liberty or,
worse, personal malice on the part of the arresting officer may be justified in the name of
security.
The case of People vs. Alvarez (1991), illustrates a warrantless arrest in accordance with
Section 5(b) of Rule 113:
In the instant case, it was the elder Alvarez who initiated the arrest a day after the crime was
committed. Having been once a policeman, he may be said to have been equipped with
knowledge of crime detection. And having had the opportunity to observe the conduct of the
three Appellants, who were at his house the whole day following the commission, it is logical
to infer that his act of going to the police, informing them that Appellants were the
perpetrators of the crime and even fetching them to make the arrest sprang from a wellgrounded belief that a crime had been committed and that Appellants had committed it. In
this regard, the arrests without a warrant were validly effected.
As for cases of rebellion, the case of Umil vs. Ramos (187 SCRA 311), clearly states that since
rebellion is a continuing offense, a rebel may be arrested at any time, with or without a
warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the offense at any time of the day or
night.