Arrest defined and how made David et al vsGMA around the anniversary of EDSA I a coup plot was uncovered

against GMA. Rally permits were cancelled but some groups continued to rally. Arroyo declared a state of national emergency Petitioner David and his companions were arrested without warrants the officials citing PP1107 (implementing the calling out powers of the president) as the basis for the arrest. News offices were also raided and items were seized. 3 of the petitioners indicated a direct injury, that their rights against unreasonable search and seizure and right against warrantless arrest was violated Searches, seizures and arrest are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a valid warrant In the Brief Account144 submitted by petitioner David, certain facts are established: first, he was arrested without warrant; second, the PNP operatives arrested him on the basis of PP 1017; third, he was brought at Camp Karingal, Quezon City where he was fingerprinted, photographed and booked like a criminal suspect; fourth,he was treated brusquely by policemen who "held his head and tried to push him" inside an unmarked car; fifth, he was charged with Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang No. 880145 and Inciting to Sedition; sixth, he was detained for seven (7) hours; and seventh,he was eventually released for insufficiency of evidence.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: 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 x x x. Neither of the two (2) exceptions mentioned above justifies petitioner Davids warrantless arrest. During the inquest for the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of BP 880, all that the arresting officers could invoke was their observation that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the invective "Oust Gloria Now" and their erroneous assumption that petitioner David was the leader of the rally.146 Consequently, the Inquest Prosecutor ordered his immediate release on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. He noted that petitioner David was not wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was wearing it, such fact is insufficient to charge him with inciting to sedition. Further, he also stated that there is insufficient evidence for the charge of violation of BP 880 as it was not even known whether petitioner David was the leader of the rally.147 But what made it doubly worse for petitioners David et al. is that not only was their right against warrantless arrest violated, but also their right to peaceably assemble.

The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search

of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Sanchez v Demetriou - application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be intent of one of the parties to arrest and intent on the other to submit - the invitation here came from a powerful group and is not something that a person can refuse at his pleasure. Thus, it is similar to an arrest. It was a command. The Petitioner here was also placed on arrest status. - The original warrantless arrest of the accused was illegal but the court acquired jurisdiction over him in connection with the rape slay cases. It was belated but it was legal. People v Sequino - the accused Nenito Melvida was arrested. The act of the suspect going with the policeman upon an invitation of the policeman was an arrest. His voluntarily going with the police officer was a submission to the polices custody. - The warrantless arrest here was illegal because the police had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating the suspects guilt. Only based it on a bio data sheet found on the scene of the crime. Does not establish probable cause for the guilt of the accused because anyone could have had it. Santiago v Vasquez - where after the filing of a complain a warrant of arrest was issued and the accused voluntarily submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. This is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits filing a motion to quash or other pleadings. Bail is intended to attain provisional liberty, this cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by his arrest or voluntary surrender. - Posting of bail is tantamount to submission to the jurisdiction of the court. She filed a motion for acceptance of cash bail bond where she sought leave that she be considered as having placed herself on the jurisdiction of the court and that the bail bond she posted be duly accepted. She cannot claim otherwise. - Also when she filed the bond she asked the court to dispense with her appearance so now she cannot claim that she did not personally appear and render jurisdiction to the court over her person. She was the one in fact who asked the court that she be allowed not to appear in until she recover from her injury. Cojuangco Jr v Sandiganbayan - the posting of bail by the accused tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. If he gives bail, demurs to the complaint or files any dilatory plea or pleads to the merits, he gives the court jurisdiction - the court here failed to abide with the consti mandate of personally determining the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant when it only based it on 1) resolution of the panel of investigators of the office of the ombudsman and 2) memo of the office of the prosecutor. There was no other basis. The two cited documents were the product of someone elses determination insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. Types of arrest 1) With warrant (when and how issued) Placer v Villanueva - the issuance of the warrant of arrest is a discretionary power of the judge. The judge may rely on the certification of the existence of probable cause by the fiscal and make it the basis for the issuance of the warrant but it does not bind him.

The judge is required to satisfy himself with the existence of probable cause. Absent such, the judge may disregard the certification of the fiscal and require submission of affidavits of witnesses. The judge did not find any basis or merit to issue the warrants here.

People v Inting - determination of probable cause function of the judge - preliminary investigation made by the prosecutor does not bind the judge, merely assists him in the determination. It is the report, affidavits, transcripts and all other supporting docus that are material for the judge to make the determination. - Determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest made by the judge - The preliminary investigation proper to determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty and whether he should be charged with the offense prosecutor - RTC judges no power to conduct Prelim Investigation but still has the power to conduct prelim examination to determine probable cause. - Comelec is empowered to conduct prelim investigation in cases involving election offenses for the purpose of helping the judge determine probable cause and for filing of information - Provincial fiscal assumes no role in election cases. Allado v Diokno - a warrant of arrest shall issue only upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses. - Probable cause such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. - The judge must first satisfy himself that there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is guilty thereof. - Judge erred when he issued the warrant. He did not personally examine the evidence but merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed. Salonga v Cruz Pano - purpose of preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of crime. The right is a statutory grant. - It is imperative upon the fiscal or the judge to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused - No general formula to determine probable cause since it must be decided in the light of conditions in given situations and its existence depends on a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason. - The judge or fiscal should not go on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during the trial. Lim v Felix - a judge may rely upon the fiscals determination of probable cause and on the basis thereof issue a warrant of arrest. The certification does not bind the judge to come out with a warrant of arrest. - When a warrant of arrest is issued: when a judge is satisfied after the preliminary examination conducted by him or the investigating officer that the offense

complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offense. The judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. If on the face of the information the judge finds no probable cause he may disregard it and order that the affidavits of the witnesses be submitted to aid him in the determination of probable cause. This was how the judge issued the warrants here because after petitioners submitted the affidavits the judge wasted no time in issuing the warrants of arrests. Judge not required to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses.

Pangandaman v Casar - first stage of the investigation: ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits and other documents offered in support and ends with the determination of the judge that o there is no ground to continue with the inquiry, thus, he dismisses the complaint o that the complaint and the supporting documents show sufficient cause to continue with the inquiry - second stage: designed to give respondent notice of the complaint, access to the evidence and opportunity to submit counter-affidavits. Judge may conduct a hearing and ask questions on matters that need to be clarified. Concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution either for the dismissal of the complaint or holding the respondent for trial - Completion of entire procedure for preliminary investigation not required before a warrant of arrest may be issued. The rule provides that no complaint or information be cognizable by the RTC may be filed without completing the procedure but it does not provide that the procedure must be completed before warrant of arrest may issue. - Rule on arrest after prelim investigation has been modified but authority of investigation judge to order arrest was not abrogated. - No grave abuse of discretion by respondent judge when he issued the warrant of arrest. The rule is that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause, not the completion of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation. The warrant of arrest for Ps are validly issued. - Warrant for the 50 john does void. Nature of a general warrant since not one could be identified. Violates the rule that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. People v Lumayok - correct procedure to follow when a peace officer makes an arrest: duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. Be informed of his consti right to remain silent and to counsel and that any statement he might make could be used against him (MIRANDA RIGHTS). He shall have the right to communicate with is lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means. Responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. - No custodial investigation be conducted unless in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested or by any in his behalf or appointed by the court - Right to counsel may be waived but must be with assistance of counsel - Any statement in violation of the procedure: inadmissible as evidence People v Albior - lack of assistance of counsel in Albiors waiver of his right to counsel renders his sworn statement inadmissible in evidence. - The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with assistance of counsel Warrantless arrest: when justified

People v Tudtud - the grounds 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, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested, a reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause coupled with good faith of the peace officers making the arrest. - Probable cause an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. - Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. - For sec, 5a Rule 113 to apply 1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime and 2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. - Note the phrase in his presence in sec 5a - The fact that the arresting officers felt that they did not have sufficient basis to obtain a warrant despite their own information-gathering efforts, raises serious questions whether such surveillance actually yielded any pertinent information and even whether they actually conducted any information-gathering at all, thereby eroding any claim to personal knowledge. People v Sy Chua Stop and Frisk - a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons - where the police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person swith whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where he identifies himself as a policeman and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel is fear, he is entitle to protection of himself and others in the area by conducting a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. - probable cause not required here but a hunch or mere suspicion is not enough. A genuine reason must exist in light of the officers experience and surrounding conditions. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest - the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search - there must first be an arrest before there can be a search - assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within the reach of the latter for any weapon or evidence to destroy

in flagrante delicto arrest the search must be incidental to a lawful arrest reliable information alone absent any overt act is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest

People v Mendez - personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant under sec 5 (b) Rule 113 must be based upon probable cause which means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. - SP02 Cernion did not have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime as to justify a warrantless arrest. - Grounds of suspicion reasonable when based on facts supported by circumstances strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested

People v Doria - valid warrantless arrest on the part of accused Doria: in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation - invalid warrantless arrest on the part of the accused Gaddao: no personal knowledge of the arresting officer which could constitute probable cause. Only knew of Gaddao when Doria pointed to her as a co-accused. Also, not committing any crime when she was arrested. - When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. - Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant under sec 5(b) of Rule 113 must be based upon probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. A reasonable suspicion must be founded on probable cause coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. Arrest of Gaddao cannot be justified under par. (b) due to the absence of personal knowledge based on probable cause. - If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her co-accused. Doria named her in response to the query where the marked money was. But Doria did not point to Gaddao as his associate in the drug business but as the person to whom he left the marked bills. Save for Dorias word, the officers had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. Cadua v CA - lawful warrantless arrest - personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion - besides reasonable ground of suspicion, action in good faith is another protective bulwark for the officer because even if the suspected person is later found innocent, the officer is not liable. - Actual possession of an unlicensed firearm, which the accused attempted to draw out, by itself, amounts to committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. - The legality of apprehending the accused would not depend on the actual commission of the crime but upon the nature of the deed, where from such characterization it may reasonably be inferred by the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision for the urgent purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen. - The arresting officers reasonably acted upon personal knowledge at the time and not on unreliable hearsay information, to effect a lawful arrest. - Any objection to the arrest, or question concerning the defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. People v Montilla - a legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting officer with the authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of the offense - probable cause having reference to such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe and conclude as to the commission of the offense, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched People v Burgos - invalid warrantless arrest - no personal knowledge by the arresting officer; the accused wasnt doing any subversive act when he was arrested, he was even plowing the field. - For arrest without warrant to be lawful it is required that a crime must in act or actually have been committed first

People v Jayson - the warrantless arrest and search were valid: the officers were patrolling the area when they received a radio message direction them to proceed to ihaw-ihaw were a shooting occurred. Bystanders pointed to the accused as the one who committed the crime. The accused was also in the process of fleeing. They arrested the accused and seized a revolver from him which was covered by a mission order (but with restrictions) - the arresting officer acted on the basis of personal knowledge of the death of the victim and the facts indicating that accused appellant was the assailant. People v Mahinay - Guidelines and duties to be done and observed by the arresting, detaining, inviting or investigating officer or his companions at the time of making an arrest, at and during custodial interrogation. 1. accused must be informed in a language known and understood by him of the reason of the arrest and must be shown the warrant, if any 2. be warned of the right to remain silent and that any statement may be used against him 3. be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times by counsel preferably of his own choice 4. be informed that if he has no layer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him 5. that WON the person has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial investigation shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made 6. must be informed that any time he has the right to communicate or confer in the most expedient means with his lawyer, any member of his family, doctor, priest or minister or be visited by a duly accredited NGO. 7. be informed that he has the right to waive his rights provided that it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and that he understood the same 8. if the person waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel otherwise the waiver is void 9. must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage that he does not wish to be questioned 10. must be informed that his initial waiver does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process 11. must be informed that any statement or evidence obtained in violation of any of the foregoing shall be inadmissible. Exceptions construed strictly David v GMA People v Valdez - the right of a person to be secure against unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. A statute or rule or situation which allows exceptions to the requirement of a warrant of arrest or search warrant must be strictly construed. We cannot liberally consider arrests or seizures without warrant to extend their application beyond the cases specifically provided or allowed by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and yet deserving of full protection and vindication - instances of warrantless arrests People v Burgos

the statute or rule which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situation when securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. For arrest without a warrant to be lawful it is required that a crime must in fact or actually have been committed first

John Doe Warrants People v Veloso Pangandaman v Casar - warrant issued against 50 John does unconstitutional and void --- not one of them can be identified by the witnesses or complainants. It is of the nature of a general warrant - it is violative of the consti injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized.