RULE 113

ABADIANO, Joseph
AGANA, Lance
ASUNCION, Rogeniel
FORTUNO, Nikki
RONA, Ryan Miguel
YU, Oliver
 ARREST
• The taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
 REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
WARRANT OF ARREST
• Finding of probable cause to be determined personally by the judge.
• Existence of probable cause is vital to the validity of a warrant of arrest

• 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.
PERSONAL EXAMINATION BY THE JUDGE
IS NOT REQUIRED
• 1. Constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the
complainant and his witness.
Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting documents
submitted by prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses.
• 2.Hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof. It is enough that the judge
personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents showing the
existence of probable cause for the indictment and, on basis thereof, issue a warrant of
arrest; or if, on the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the
prosecutor’s resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of witness to aid
him in determining its existence.
UNNECESSARY VIOLENCE AUTHORITY TO SUMMON
NOT ALLOWED ASSISTANCE

• No person arrested shall be • GR: Right and duty of an officer to

effect an arrest, in proper cases,
subject to greater restraint than carries with it the authority to
is necessary for his detention. orally summon as many persons
as he deems necessary to assist
him in effecting the arrest.
• Xpn: Rendering assistance would
cause harm to himself
 METHODS OF ARREST WITH A
WA R R A N T
• When making an arrest: Officer shall inform
• A) cause of his arrest
• B.) The fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest
METHODS OF ARREST WITHOUT A
WARRANT
• Officer must inform the accused of:
• (A) his authority
• (B) cause of his arrest
• Private citizen should inform the accused of:
• (A) intention to arrest him
• (B) cause of his arrest
 WA R R A N T L E S S A R R E S T
• General Rule: Warrant of Arrest is required before an arrest is made
• Exceptions:
• In flagrante delicto
• Hot Pursuit
• Escape
• Absconding
 WHEN PERSON TO BE ARRESTED
IS INSIDE A BUILDING
• In accordance to section 11 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
officer in order to make an arrest either by virtue of warrant or without warrant as provided
by section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or
reasonably believed to be in, if there would be refusal to the admittance to the officer,
AFTER the officer ANNOUNCED his authority and purpose.
• What is necessary here is the fact that the officer must announce his authority and purpose,
after such hey may now act as what is provided in sec. 11.
• As the officer has the right to enter, it is implied herein that he has also the right to get out
or break of the building or the enclosure that he has entered to liberate himself.
 TIME OF ARREST
• Arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day, even Sunday.
• Unlike search warrant which must be served only in daytime.
 RIGHTS OF PERSONS
ARRESTED
(R.A. 7348)
• Necessary points in relation to arrest:
• Deriving from Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438 provides for "the rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation; Duties of
Public Officers:
• The right to be assisted by counsel at all times.
• The right to be informed of the reason of his arrest, together with the reading of his "MIRANDA RIGHTS", provided that it shall be in the
language that the arrested, or detained can understand.
• The right to know the contents of the custodial investigation report by explaining to the arrested or detained person in a language that he
knows the contents of such report.
• The right of the arrested, or detained to do extrajudicial confession, by which it should be in WRITING and to be SIGNED in the presence
of his counsel, upon the absence of the counsel, upon a VALID waiver, he may do it in the presence of any of the parents, brothers and
sisters, his spouse, municipal mayor, municipal judge, distinct school supervisor, or priest, or minister of the gospel as CHOSEN BY HIM;
Otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
• Any waiver of the arrested, or detained shall be signed by him in the presence of his counsel.
• The right of the arrested, or detained, or under custodial investigation to be visited by his immediate family, medical doctor or priest, or
religious minister chosen by him, or by his counsel, or by any national non-government organization duly accredited by the CHR, or by any
international non-government organization duly accredited by the Office of the President.
 S A R A U M v. P E O P L E
• FACTS:
• Buy-bust operation by PNP with PDEA against certain “PATA”
• Police chase
• Caught Saraum and Esperanza
• The two was caught in the act engaging in a meth session
• Counsel entered his objection to the admission of the paraphernalias as evidence due to an
invalid warrantless arrest when the Prosecutor already begun presenting their evidence
• RTC convicted them of possession of such paraphernalia
• CA sustained conviction
ISSUE:
Was the warrantless arrest valid?

• HELD:
• YES.
• The arrest in flagrante delicto was invalid.
SEC. 5 (a), Rule 113
ELEMENTS OF VALID ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
1.) Person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed,
actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime
2.) Such overt act is done IN THE PRESENCE OF OR WITHIN THE VIEW OF A
ARRESRING OFFICER
 COMERCIANTE v. PEOPLE
• FACTS:
• Agent Radan and Officer Calag was patrolling an area in Mandaluyong
• They saw the Petitioner standing and showing improper and unpleasant movements
• With one of them handing plastic sachets to the other
• The officers, thinking that the plastic contains SHABU,
• Calag arrested the Petitioner.
• Petitioner QUESTIONED THE ARREST MADE UPON HIM
ISSUE:
Whether the arrest made upon the petitioner is a valid warrantless
arrest
• HELD:
• In both the instances of an arrest inflagrante delicto and arrest in hot pursuit, the
arresting officer’s persona; knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense
is required.
• The court finds it impossible for PO3 Calag to identify the commission of the
crime because his distance to the accused.
• The court also said that the acts of standing around with a companion and handing
something cannot be considered a criminal act hence, there was no reason for the
stop and frisk.
 L U Z v. P E O P L E
• FACTS:
• PO3 Alteza flagedown Luz because of violating a municipal ordinance which is driving a motorcycle without
a helmet.’
• He invited Luz inside the station because it is near on the place where he was assigned.
• While he was issuing the ticket, he noticed Luz uneasy and kept on reaching something inside his jacket
• He asked Luz to take out the contents of his jacket’s pocket as Luz may have a weapon inside which turned
out to be 2 sachets of Suspected shabu.
• RTC convicted Luz for illegal possession of dangerous drugs as the substance are positive Methampetamine
Hydrochloride.
• C.A. affirmed.
• Luz claimed that there was no lawful search and seizure, because there was no lawful arrest.
ISSUE:
Whether the arrest, search and seizure were invalid.

• HELD:
• Yes. There was no valid arrest.
• When he was flagged down for a traffic violation, he was not, IPSO FACTO
and soley for this reason, arrested.
• There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search was likewise illegal.
• The items seized are inadmissible. Because it was not related to his offense.
• Thus, Luz was aquitted.
 A N T I Q U E R A v. P E O P L E
• FACTS:
• Police officers were conducting a Police visibility patrol
• They saw 2 unidentified men rush out of a house and boarded a jeep.
• Believing that there was crime, they approached the house and peeked through the partially open door.
• Officers saw Antiquera and Cruz.
• They entered the house they saw Antiquera and Cruz engaging in a pot session and arrested them.
• While inspecting the pplace, P01 Cabutihan saw a jewelry box containing Shabu and Paraphernalias.
• RTC found them guilty of illegal possession if paraphernalia of dangerous drugs
• CA affirmed
ISSUE:
Whether the arrest was invalid
• HELD:
• YES.
• There was an unlawful arrest, because the circumstances do not make out a case of arrest made
in inflagrante delicto.
• The officers did not notice anything strange going on in the house from the street where they
stand.
• Even if they peeked, they saw no activity that warranted them entering it.
• Clearly, there was no crime plainly exposed to their view that authorized them to arrest the
accused without warrant.
• Considering his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure was likewise illegal as well.
 P E O P L E v. VA S Q U E Z
• FACTS:
• Initially the case of illegal possession of drugs was raffled, but upon motion, it was consolidated with the case of illegal sale of drugs.
• On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty for both charges.
• Pre-trial was held but was terminated without the parties entering into any stipulation of facts.
• The confidential informant reported to P02 Trambulo about the illegal drug activities.
• Fajardo, formed a buy-bust team
• Vasquez was arrested during the operations
• RTC convicted him of the crime charged
• RTC gave more credence to the prosecution’s evidence given thath the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on
the part of the police officers was not overcome.
• CA affirmed the conviction.
• The accused contended that the officers did not have a search warrant or warrant of arrest at the time he was arrested.
• There is an ample time to secure warrant of arrest against him and the evidence obtained as a result thereof was inadmissible in court
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant may assail the
validity of the arrest
• HELD:
• NO.
• Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment.
Thus, he is now estopped from questioning such arrest.
• The fact that he was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to undercover agent in a buy-bust operation. His
arrest without warrant is deemed lawful.
• Appellant cannot seek exculpation by invoking belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and the subsequent search upon his
person.
• Warrantless search is permissible in the instances of:
1.) Search of moving vehicle 4.) Waiver or consented search

2.) Seizure in plain view 5.) Stop and frisk situations

•
3.) Customs search Search incidental to a lawful arrest
•