Waiver of objection on the irregularity of arrest | Arrest (RULE 113) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

WAIVER OF OBJECTION ON THE IRREGULARITY OF ARREST
(Rule 113, Rules of Court, Philippines)

---

1. Foundational Principles

1. Arrest and Jurisdiction

   • An arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
   • Jurisdiction over the offense is conferred by law and jurisdiction over the person is acquired either by voluntary appearance of the accused in court or by a valid arrest.
   • Even if an arrest is alleged to be illegal or irregular, it generally does not divest the court of its jurisdiction over the person of the accused once the accused submits to the court’s authority (e.g., by entering a plea, participating in trial).

2. Right to Question Irregularity

   • An accused who believes they were illegally or irregularly arrested has the right to object by timely challenging the manner of their arrest.
   • This challenge is typically raised before arraignment or in a motion to quash the Information/complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person, or as part of a motion to dismiss grounded on an invalid arrest.

---

2. Rule on Waiver of Objection

1. General Rule

   • Failure to object to an irregularity in arrest before entering a plea (that is, before arraignment or at least before participating in trial without qualification) constitutes a waiver of that objection.

2. Legal Basis

   • The settled doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence is that “any objection based on the manner or legality of the arrest … must be made before the accused enters a plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.”
   • This is anchored on:
     • The Rules of Court (particularly on motions to quash for lack of jurisdiction over the person).
     • A long line of Supreme Court decisions holding that once the accused voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea and participating in the proceedings, all objections pertaining to defects in the arrest are deemed foreclosed.

3. Effect of Waiver

   • If the accused does not raise the issue of invalid arrest at the earliest opportunity, the court treats the defect as cured.
   • The court retains and continues to exercise valid jurisdiction over the accused’s person.
   • The accused cannot later claim that the court has no jurisdiction over them on the ground of an allegedly irregular arrest once the case progresses.

---

3. Policy Considerations and Rationale

1. Ensuring Order in Judicial Proceedings

   • Courts require timely objections to procedural irregularities so that issues may be promptly resolved.
   • If an irregularity in the arrest is raised immediately, the court can either:
     • Order the release of the accused if the arrest is clearly unlawful, or
     • Correct the defect (if correctible), or
     • Sustain the arrest if found valid.

2. Preventing Delay Tactics

   • The rule avoids a scenario where the accused fully participates in the trial only to raise “illegal arrest” for the first time on appeal or late in the proceedings, which could unduly delay the administration of justice.

3. Distinction Between Illegal Arrest and Lack of Jurisdiction

   • A flawed or “illegal” arrest does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction if the accused voluntarily appears and participates in the proceedings.
   • Jurisdiction over the person can be acquired in ways other than a perfectly valid arrest—most commonly by the accused’s voluntary submission (e.g., entering a plea, filing pleadings, etc.).
   • By contrast, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (the offense) is never cured by waiver or silence because it is conferred by law and not by the parties’ actions.

---

4. Procedure When Questioning Illegal Arrest

1. Before Arraignment

   • File a Motion to Quash the Information (Rule 117 of the Rules of Court) on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused due to an invalid/illegal arrest.
   • Alternatively, file a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of invalid arrest or a motion specifically challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the accused.

2. During Arraignment

   • The accused (through counsel) may enter a conditional plea or raise the objection in open court prior to a “not guilty” plea, thereby preserving the issue for resolution.

3. After Arraignment

   • If the accused fails to raise the irregularity before or at arraignment and instead pleads to the charge (guilty or not guilty) without protest, participates in the trial, and allows the proceedings to continue, the accused will be deemed to have waived any objection to the defect in the arrest.

4. Implications of Proper Timing

   • When raised timely, the court will hold a summary hearing to determine the validity of the arrest or may look into the infirmity claimed (e.g., absence of lawful warrant, no probable cause for warrantless arrest, violations of rights in custodial investigation, etc.).
   • If found irregular, the court can order the appropriate remedy. However, if the deficiency is merely technical and does not necessarily affect probable cause or if the accused is validly charged, the criminal proceedings typically continue with the accused’s release (if the arrest was unconstitutional) but re-arrest or re-service of a valid warrant may ensue.

---

5. Leading Jurisprudence

Philippine courts, through numerous decisions, have consistently upheld the rule on waiver.

• People v. Edgardo B. Cabiles – Affirmed that the voluntary submission of an accused to the court’s jurisdiction bars a later challenge to alleged illegal arrest.
• People v. Enoja – Emphasized that an objection to arrest must be raised before plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived.
• People v. Mapa – Clarified that “illegality of the arrest” alone does not divest the court of jurisdiction once the accused appears and fails to object at the earliest opportunity.
• People v. Maspil – Reiterated that alleged violation of the accused’s rights arising from an unlawful arrest is waived if not raised prior to arraignment.

---

6. Key Takeaways

1. Timeliness is Crucial

   • The accused must promptly challenge irregularities in the arrest.
   • Any objection on this ground is deemed waived if not raised before plea or if the accused proceeds to trial without objection.

2. Court Still Acquires Jurisdiction

   • An irregular arrest does not strip the court of jurisdiction once the accused is in its custody and does not timely protest.
   • Voluntary appearance and active participation in court proceedings perfect the jurisdiction over the person of the accused, despite any flaw in the initial arrest.

3. Remedy for Illegal Arrest

   • Immediate filing of a motion to quash, or challenging the arrest at or before arraignment, is the proper remedy if the accused wishes to contest the manner of the arrest.
   • Failure to do so is fatal to the objection, subject to very rare exceptions (e.g., fundamental violations of constitutional rights that go beyond mere irregularities in arrest).

4. Protecting Constitutional Rights

   • While the Rules encourage timely objection, they also do not condone lawless arrest.
   • The principle ensures that constitutional rights remain enforceable, but demands diligence from the defense to raise such issues promptly.

---

Conclusion

Under Philippine criminal procedure, any question concerning the irregularity or illegality of an arrest must be raised before the accused enters a plea. Once the accused is arraigned, participates in the trial without objecting to the legality of the arrest, or otherwise voluntarily submits to the court’s authority, all defects in the arrest are deemed waived. This rule underscores both the protection of constitutional rights and the orderly administration of justice, ensuring that defects in arrest procedures are challenged and remedied promptly.

Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants [A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC] | Arrest (RULE 113) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive, meticulous discussion of the Supreme Court’s Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC), promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on June 29, 2021. These rules took effect on July 31, 2021. They provide guidelines on the mandatory use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) or alternative recording devices during the implementation of arrest and search warrants, thereby promoting transparency, protecting both law enforcers and civilians, and upholding constitutional rights.

---

1. Purpose and Coverage

1. Purpose

   • Enhance the rights of persons involved in law enforcement operations.
   • Protect both law enforcement officers and the public by creating an audiovisual record of warrant enforcement.
   • Ensure accountability and deter abuses in the execution of warrants.
   • Strengthen the admissibility of evidence gathered from arrests or searches by reducing allegations of irregularities.

2. Coverage

   • The rules govern law enforcement officers (LEOs) and any peace officer charged with implementing arrest warrants and search warrants issued by Philippine courts.
   • The provisions apply whenever arrest or search warrants are to be served or executed, whether these are done during planned operations or otherwise.
   • These rules are strictly procedural in nature, meant to supplement existing rules under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (particularly Rule 113 on Arrest) and other relevant laws.

---

2. Definitions

To fully understand the Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras, key terms are defined under A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC, including:

1. Body-Worn Camera (BWC)

   • A device capable of recording video and audio, worn on the law enforcer’s body (typically on the chest area), to capture the perspective of that officer.

2. Alternative Recording Device (ARD)

   • Any other electronic device (e.g., handheld camera, camera phone, or other video-recording gadget) used when a body-worn camera is unavailable or to supplement it.

3. Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)

   • Any officer authorized by law to implement an arrest or search warrant, e.g., members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), or other similar agencies.

4. Chain of Custody

   • The process detailing how audio-video recordings are preserved, accessed, transferred, or disposed of to maintain authenticity, reliability, and completeness.

5. Warrant Implementation

   • The process or procedure of executing an arrest warrant or a search warrant.

---

3. General Rule on Mandatory Use of BWCs/ARDs

1. Mandatory Requirement

   • All law enforcement officers tasked to serve or implement an arrest or search warrant are required to use at least one body-worn camera and an alternative recording device.
   • Each LEO participating in the operation must be equipped with a BWC when feasible. If, due to limitations, not all can have a BWC, then the implementing team should still have the required minimum number of body cameras (at least one, but preferably more), plus at least one ARD.

2. Pre-Operation Coordination

   • The LEOs must plan the operation and ensure that functioning BWCs/ARDs are available.
   • They must test and confirm that the devices work and have sufficient battery life and memory before proceeding.

3. No Available BWC: Procedure

   • If there is no available BWC, the LEO must:
     1. File an ex parte motion before the court that issued the warrant, detailing the unavailability of a BWC.
     2. Request authority to use an ARD alone (without a BWC).
   • The unavailability of a BWC without prior court approval does not outright void the service of the warrant but can expose the LEOs to potential legal consequences (e.g., suppression of evidence, administrative liability) if no valid justification is given.

4. Exigent or Emergency Circumstances

   • In cases of hot pursuit or similarly urgent situations where LEOs cannot secure a BWC or an ARD or cannot obtain prior court approval, they must still comply with the BWC guidelines to the extent possible.
   • The justifications for non-use or incomplete use should be recorded in an after-action report.

---

4. Activation and Operation of the Body-Worn Camera

1. Time of Activation

   • The BWC and ARD must be activated as soon as the LEO arrives at the place of execution or immediately before serving the warrant.
   • Continuous recording is required from the start of the operation until its conclusion, unless circumstances justify a pause (see below).

2. Announcement of Recording

   • Whenever practicable, the officers should inform the subject/s and any persons present that the enforcement is being recorded by a camera. This helps maintain transparency.
   • However, the safety of officers and civilians is paramount; if an officer reasonably believes that announcing the presence of the camera compromises safety, the officer may refrain from such announcement, provided the reasons are properly documented.

3. Continuous Recording

   • The camera should not be turned off or paused during the operation, unless there is:
     1. Inadvertent or Accidental Deactivation: A device malfunction, power failure, or other technical problem.
     2. Privacy Concerns: For example, if the LEO enters a sensitive area (e.g., bathroom) and there are privacy or modesty considerations, the camera may be briefly paused.
     3. Threat to Safety: If the officer’s life is in imminent danger, or there is a need to conceal certain LEOs’ tactics.
   • Any interruption must be justified and recorded in an after-action report, indicating the reason, the time, and duration of the interruption.

4. Scope of Coverage

   • The BWC should capture as much of the operation as possible, showing the interaction with the person to be arrested or the premises to be searched.
   • Officers must exercise care to avoid obstructing the camera’s lens or microphone.

---

5. Post-Operation Procedure and Chain of Custody

1. Marking and Identification

   • Immediately after the operation, all recordings must be properly labeled or tagged. This ensures that each video file is accounted for with time stamps, date, location, and the officers involved.

2. Storage and Preservation

   • The recordings must be securely stored to prevent tampering or unauthorized viewing.
   • A designated custodian in the law enforcement agency is tasked to maintain the authenticity of the recordings, with logs for any access or copying of the data.

3. Retention Period

   • Generally, recordings should be retained for a minimum period (often set by internal policies, but the Supreme Court rule also contemplates a timeframe sufficient to cover any potential investigations or litigation).
   • If the operation leads to the filing of charges, the recordings must be preserved until the final resolution of the case.

4. Access and Confidentiality

   • Only authorized persons—typically the officers involved, their superiors, prosecutors, and courts—may view or handle the recordings.
   • Unauthorized disclosure or distribution of the footage can subject the officer to administrative or criminal liability, depending on relevant data privacy and other laws.

5. Submission to the Court

   • If the recordings are material to the prosecution of the offense, the prosecution or the defense may apply for their submission into evidence.
   • The chain of custody must be strictly observed for the video recordings to be admissible.

---

6. Court Proceedings and Remedies for Non-Compliance

1. Remedies in Case of Non-Compliance

   • The court shall not automatically invalidate the warrant’s implementation due to lack of recording, but the burden falls on law enforcers to justify any deviation.
   • The aggrieved party (accused or counsel) may file:
     • A Motion to Suppress Evidence if there are serious irregularities or tampering.
     • A Motion to Quash the Warrant if the rules were blatantly disregarded, casting doubt on the validity of the warrant or its execution.
   • Courts have discretion to evaluate the reasons for non-compliance, whether or not it was based on compelling circumstances or just neglect.

2. Admissibility of Evidence

   • Properly obtained recordings (i.e., with chain of custody complied with) are generally admissible to prove the circumstances of arrest or search.
   • They can corroborate or contradict testimonial evidence and serve as an impartial account of the incident.

3. Exclusionary Rule

   • If there was a deliberate disregard of the BWC rules and such non-use or misuse results in a violation of constitutional rights (e.g., an unreasonable search, planting of evidence, or other misconduct), the court can consider suppressing the evidence obtained.

4. Burden on the Prosecution and Defense

   • The prosecution can use the footage to support the lawfulness of the warrant’s implementation.
   • The defense can use the footage to prove any abuses or irregularities, or to impeach the credibility of law enforcement witnesses.

---

7. Protection of Constitutional Rights

1. Right to Due Process

   • Body-worn cameras help ensure that the execution of warrants is fair, transparent, and free from abuses, thus protecting due process.

2. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

   • Recording the search process helps ensure compliance with the scope of the warrant, protecting persons from warrantless or overbroad intrusions.

3. Right to Privacy

   • While the use of body-worn cameras can intrude on privacy, the Rules require officers to minimize unnecessary recording or intrusion, especially in sensitive scenarios (e.g., presence of minors, bedroom searches).
   • Officers must still respect privacy rights and only record as necessary to effect the lawful warrant.

4. Right Against Self-Incrimination

   • The presence of BWCs does not compel the person being arrested or searched to speak; they retain the right to remain silent. The recordings merely document what transpires.

---

8. Administrative and Disciplinary Liability

1. Responsibilities of Law Enforcement Agencies

   • Agencies must adopt internal regulations consistent with these Supreme Court Rules, including procurement of BWCs, training of officers, and setting up protocols for storage, maintenance, and retrieval of recordings.
   • Supervisors must ensure adequate supply and proper usage of BWCs, and must monitor compliance.

2. Officer Liability

   • An officer who deliberately fails to use a BWC, tampers with a device, destroys or alters the footage, or otherwise obstructs the rule’s intent may face administrative sanctions (e.g., dismissal from service, suspension) or criminal liability (e.g., for obstruction of justice, violation of data privacy laws, or perjury).

3. Judicial Oversight

   • Courts retain the power to assess compliance with the BWC rules. A judge may order investigations or cite officers for contempt if there is evidence of deliberate misconduct.

---

9. Impact and Significance

1. Enhanced Transparency

   • The requirement of video documentation helps deter both police misconduct and false accusations against law enforcers.

2. Improved Investigations and Prosecutions

   • Clear audiovisual records can clarify contested factual issues, reduce reliance on purely testimonial evidence, and assist the courts in determining the credibility of parties.

3. Public Trust

   • The consistent use of BWCs and fair handling of recordings can foster greater trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

4. Challenges in Implementation

   • Funding and resources: Ensuring enough BWCs, data storage solutions, and training can be costly.
   • Privacy considerations: Balancing transparency with privacy rights can prove complex.
   • Technological concerns: Device malfunctions, data corruption, and cybersecurity threats must be addressed via robust protocols.

---

10. Key Takeaways

1. Mandatory Use: The Supreme Court mandates the use of BWCs and ARDs in serving arrest and search warrants to safeguard constitutional rights and enhance the reliability of evidence.
2. Court Authorization for Exceptions: If no BWC is available, the law enforcers must justify such unavailability in court.
3. Chain of Custody: Proper labeling, storage, and documentation of recordings are critical to preserve their admissibility.
4. Remedies for Violations: Non-compliance can lead to the suppression of evidence or quashal of the warrant, and possible administrative or criminal liabilities for erring officers.
5. Balance of Interests: The new rules aim to balance law enforcement objectives with fundamental liberties, promoting both security and accountability.

---

Final Note

These Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC) mark a significant step forward in the Philippine criminal justice system. They reinforce constitutional safeguards for persons arrested or searched while providing an official procedural framework that benefits both law enforcement officers and the public. As the Supreme Court continues to refine procedural rules, compliance and best practices in the use of BWCs will evolve, but the cornerstone remains: transparency, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights in every stage of criminal procedure.

Method of arrest | Arrest (RULE 113) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the method of arrest under the Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 113, particularly Sections 7, 8, and 9), together with key principles, relevant jurisprudence, and practical considerations. This focuses on the procedural rules governing how an arrest is carried out, whether by a peace officer or a private individual, with or without a warrant. It also integrates constitutional safeguards and typical issues encountered in practice.

---

I. GENERAL FRAMEWORK: ARREST UNDER RULE 113

A. Definition of Arrest (Rule 113, Section 1)

• Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
• The essence of arrest is restraint on a person’s liberty; once a person’s freedom of movement is restricted, an arrest has effectively taken place.

B. Modes of Arrest

1. Arrest with a warrant: Issued by a judge upon probable cause, personally determined after examination of the complainant and the witnesses.
2. Arrest without a warrant: Allowed only in specific circumstances under Section 5 of Rule 113 (i.e., in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, and escapee exceptions).

The method by which the arrest is carried out—how the arrester approaches the arrestee, how information is conveyed, and what steps are taken—affects both the legality and validity of the arrest as well as the arrestee’s rights.

---

II. METHOD OF ARREST

A. Method of Arrest by an Officer By Virtue of a Warrant (Rule 113, Section 7)

1. Informing the Person Arrested

   • The officer must inform the person to be arrested:
     • That there is a warrant for his/her arrest; and
     • The cause of the arrest (i.e., the criminal charge or offense stated in the warrant).
   • Exceptions to this requirement:
     • When the person to be arrested flees, forcibly resists, or attempts to flee/resist before the officer has a chance to inform him/her;
     • When giving such information would imperil the arrest (e.g., there is an imminent danger to life or property if the officer pauses to explain).

2. Showing the Warrant

   • The officer need not have the warrant in his/her possession at the time of the arrest (for practical reasons, such as immediate pursuit).
   • However, if the arrestee requests to see the warrant, it must be shown to him/her as soon as practicable (i.e., at the earliest opportunity).

3. Practical Observations

   • Failure to strictly inform the accused of the cause of the arrest or that a warrant exists does not automatically invalidate the arrest if the exceptions apply or if substantial compliance is present (e.g., the accused knew he was being arrested pursuant to a warrant).
   • If there was clear knowledge on the part of the arrestee that a warrant existed (e.g., from prior proceedings), courts have considered that sufficient compliance may occur.

4. Constitutional Overlay

   • Even if one is lawfully arrested by virtue of a warrant, any search incident to arrest must also be reasonable and limited to the person and items within immediate control. Evidence seized beyond the permissible scope could be deemed inadmissible (People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014).

---

B. Method of Arrest by an Officer Without a Warrant (Rule 113, Section 8)

1. Authority and Cause of the Arrest

   • When an officer effects a warrantless arrest (e.g., in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, or if the suspect is an escapee), the officer must inform the person to be arrested:
     • Of his/her authority (that he or she is a law enforcement officer or person with authority to effect arrests); and
     • Of the cause of the arrest (i.e., the specific act or offense that justifies the warrantless arrest).

2. Exceptions to the Information Requirement

   • When the person to be arrested is actively committing an offense (in flagrante delicto);
   • When the person is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense or after an escape (hot pursuit scenario);
   • When the suspect flees, forcibly resists, or there is no opportunity to provide the information;
   • When providing such information would imperil the arrest or put the arresting officer or others in grave danger.

3. Guiding Jurisprudence

   • The Supreme Court has consistently held that while immediate verbal notice of the cause of arrest is ideal, it may be excused when doing so is impossible or dangerous (People v. Gerente, G.R. No. 95028, August 30, 1991).
   • Subsequent notification—especially once the situation stabilizes—can cure initial omissions if the core objective is met: ensuring the arrestee knows the basis of the seizure of his/her person.

4. Constitutional Considerations

   • Warrantless arrests must strictly fall under one of the recognized exceptions in Section 5, Rule 113; otherwise, the arrest is illegal and any evidence seized may be suppressed (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine).
   • During custodial investigation, the accused must be read his/her Miranda rights. While not strictly part of the method of arrest under Rule 113, in practice, law enforcers are encouraged to advise suspects of their rights immediately upon arrest or as soon as practicable thereafter to comply with constitutional safeguards (Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution).

---

C. Method of Arrest by a Private Person (Rule 113, Section 9)

1. Right of a Private Person to Arrest

   • A private individual can lawfully arrest another only under two main scenarios:
     1. When the person to be arrested is committing an offense in his/her presence (in flagrante delicto).
     2. When an offense has in fact just been committed and the private person has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed it (hot pursuit scenario).
   • Any other attempt by a private person to arrest can be deemed illegal unless it falls under these exceptions.

2. Requirement to Inform

   • A private person must inform the person to be arrested:
     • Of the intention to arrest (i.e., that a citizen’s or private arrest is taking place); and
     • Of the cause of the arrest (e.g., “I am arresting you because I saw you commit this act…”).
   • Exceptions (similar to above):
     • When the person to be arrested is in the actual commission of an offense;
     • When the person flees or forcibly resists; or
     • When providing such information would imperil the arrest.

3. Turnover to Authorities

   • Immediately after effecting the arrest, the private person must turn over the arrested individual to the nearest police station or peace officer. A private arrest does not confer upon the citizen the power to detain indefinitely.

4. Legal Implications

   • If a private person makes an arrest outside the parameters of Rule 113, Section 5 (warrantless arrests) and Section 9 (method by private persons), he/she could be liable for unlawful arrest, illegal detention, or other crimes.

---

III. PRACTICAL AND PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Use of Force

   • Under both the law and relevant police manuals (e.g., the Philippine National Police Operational Procedures), only reasonable force is allowed to effect an arrest. Excessive or unnecessary force can result in administrative, civil, or criminal liability.

2. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

   • An arresting officer may perform a warrantless search incident to a valid arrest. This includes searching the person and the immediate surroundings to ensure officer safety and preserve evidence from destruction.
   • Any search beyond these bounds generally requires a search warrant or another recognized exception (e.g., consented search, checkpoint searches under specific guidelines, etc.).

3. Failure to Comply with Method Requirements

   • As a rule, failure to strictly comply with the announcements or instructions required by Sections 7, 8, or 9 does not automatically nullify the arrest if it still meets lawful grounds and the exceptions apply.
   • However, if the arrest is effected in a manner not sanctioned by law (no warrant, no valid exception), the arrest is considered illegal. Evidence obtained as a direct result of such arrest can be challenged and potentially excluded.

4. Informing Arrestee of Constitutional Rights

   • While the method-of-arrest sections do not explicitly say “read Miranda warnings,” law enforcers are constitutionally obligated to inform the accused of the following rights once under custodial investigation:
     • Right to remain silent;
     • Right to have competent and independent counsel (preferably of his choice);
     • Right to be provided counsel if unable to afford one; and
     • That anything the person says can and will be used against him/her in court.
   • The absence of these warnings or the denial of counsel may render admissions or confessions inadmissible in court.

5. Documentation and Reporting

   • Police officers are typically required to accomplish an Arrest Report or an Affidavit of Arrest (sometimes also called a Booking Sheet). This document indicates:
     • The name of the person arrested;
     • The time, date, and place of arrest;
     • The reason or cause of arrest;
     • The identity of the arresting officer and witnesses; and
     • Whether force was used or any property was seized.
   • This documentation helps ensure transparency and is critical if the validity of the arrest is questioned.

6. Legal Remedies in Case of Illegal Arrest

   • The person unlawfully arrested may move to quash the Information on the ground that the arrest was invalid, though an illegal arrest does not always divest the court of jurisdiction once the Information is filed. However, the accused may file:
     • A motion to declare any evidence obtained pursuant to the illegal arrest as inadmissible;
     • Administrative complaints against erring officers;
     • Civil claims for damages for violation of rights, if warranted.

---

IV. RELEVANT LEGAL ETHICS CONCERNS

1. Lawyer’s Role Upon Arrest of a Client

   • A lawyer must ensure that the client’s right to counsel is respected at every stage.
   • Ethical duty to confirm that the arresting officers provided the requisite information and followed due process. Where violations have occurred, the lawyer must zealously advocate for the client’s constitutional and procedural rights (e.g., file motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence).

2. Avoidance of Misleading the Courts

   • Defense counsel must avoid frivolously challenging an arrest that was evidently valid. The Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate candor and honesty toward the court.
   • On the other hand, prosecution and government counsel must not condone or conceal procedural lapses by law enforcement officers that impinge on constitutional or procedural guarantees.

3. Confidentiality and Privilege

   • Discussions between attorney and client after an arrest are privileged. Lawyers should be conscious of the environment in which they conduct interviews or consultations—ensuring confidentiality unless waived by the client.

---

V. COMMON PITFALLS AND POINTERS

• Mislabeling an Arrest as “Invitation for Questioning”: Law enforcement sometimes invites a suspect to the station “for questioning” but effectively deprives him/her of liberty. If the suspect is not free to leave, that is an arrest, and all rules on method and constitutional safeguards apply.
• Failure to Distinguish Citizen’s Arrest and Citizens’ “Assistance”: A private individual may assist law enforcers but does not automatically have the authority to arrest unless the scenario strictly falls under Rule 113. Otherwise, liability for unlawful arrest or illegal detention can arise.
• Delayed Explanation or Non-explanation of the Cause of Arrest: While practicable exceptions exist, law enforcers must strive to give the reasons for the arrest promptly to avoid any claims of arbitrariness.
• Abuse of Warrantless Arrest Exceptions: Courts carefully scrutinize claims of in flagrante delicto and hot pursuit. Officers must demonstrate that they had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that a crime was actually being committed or had just been committed. Vague or generalized “suspicion” is insufficient.

---

VI. SUMMARY

1. Arrest With Warrant (Sec. 7)

   • Inform the arrestee of the warrant and the cause; present the warrant if requested, when practicable.

2. Arrest Without Warrant (Sec. 8)

   • Officer must inform the arrestee of his/her authority and the cause of the arrest unless circumstances (flight, resistance, danger) prevent it; the arrest itself must meet the recognized exceptions under the law.

3. Arrest by a Private Person (Sec. 9)

   • Inform the person about the intention and cause of the arrest, except when it imperils the arrest; only valid if committed in presence or if there is a hot pursuit scenario.

4. Exceptions to Informing Requirement

   • Flight, resistance, or danger. Even then, the justification must be clear.

5. Consequences of Invalid Method

   • Potential illegality of the arrest and exclusion of evidence gathered as a result.
   • Possible administrative/criminal liability for the arresting officer or private person.

6. Protection of Rights

   • Constitutional rights (especially under Article III of the 1987 Constitution) must be respected at all times; otherwise, confessions and evidence may be inadmissible.

By carefully following Sections 7, 8, and 9 of Rule 113, arresting officers—and even private persons—ensure that arrests are executed lawfully, respecting the rights of the individual. Non-compliance can lead to the arrest being deemed illegal and any evidence obtained deemed inadmissible, among other legal repercussions. As counsel, always check the grounds for the arrest, the manner in which it was carried out, and the constitutional rights afforded to the accused.

Arrest without warrant, when lawful | Arrest (RULE 113) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL (Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, Philippines)

Under Philippine law, an arrest is defined as the taking of a person into custody so that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Generally, arrests must be carried out by virtue of a valid warrant issued by a judge. However, the Rules of Court (Rule 113) and pertinent jurisprudence recognize specific situations where a warrantless arrest is permissible.

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the legal framework governing arrest without a warrant in the Philippines, covering statutory bases, constitutional considerations, jurisprudential guidelines, and practical points that any practitioner must bear in mind.

---

I. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

1. Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Constitution)

   • Section 2 of Article III protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, implicitly requiring judicial warrants for arrests except in circumstances specified by law.
   • Section 3 of Article III safeguards the privacy of communication and correspondence, indirectly affecting arrests (e.g., need for probable cause in intercepting communications).
   • The Constitution’s protection generally underscores that warrantless arrests are exceptions to the rule and must strictly comply with the conditions laid down by statute and jurisprudence.

2. Probable Cause Requirement

   • Even in instances where an arrest without a warrant is allowed, the arresting officer must have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is actually committing a crime.
   • Probable cause, in the context of warrantless arrests, refers to a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a prudent person to believe that the individual to be arrested is guilty of an offense.

---

II. STATUTORY BASIS: RULE 113, SECTION 5 (RULES OF COURT)

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

1. In Flagrante Delicto Arrest (Sec. 5[a])

   “When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.”

   • Key elements:
     • The person is arrested in the presence of the officer or private individual;
     • The offense has just been committed, or is being or about to be committed; and
     • There is personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person is indeed committing the offense.
   • Important points:
     • The phrase “in his presence” is broadly interpreted. It does not always require that the officer personally witness every act that constitutes the offense. It suffices that the officer’s senses (sight, hearing, smell, etc.) perceive the occurrence.
     • Jurisprudence demands a “direct” observation; mere suspicion or hearsay is not enough to effect a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.

2. Hot Pursuit Arrest (Sec. 5[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.”

   • Key elements:
     1. An offense has just been committed;
     2. The officer (or private individual) has personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested was the offender; and
     3. The officer acts immediately thereafter—i.e., the pursuit must be relatively close in time to the commission of the offense.
   • Critical points:
     • The proximity in time between the offense and the arrest is crucial. The longer the delay, the more difficult it is to justify it as a hot pursuit.
     • “Personal knowledge” has been strictly construed by courts. Rumor or secondhand information from bystanders is not sufficient to meet the threshold.
     • The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the arresting officer must have a strong basis—facts, not merely speculation—that the suspect is the actual perpetrator.

3. Escapee Arrest (Sec. 5[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.”

   • Scope:
     • Applies to those convicted by final judgment who escape from imprisonment.
     • Applies equally to detainees (pre-trial or pending appeal) who escape from a penal institution or while in transit.
   • Justification:
     • Society’s interest in recapturing an escaped prisoner is heightened. The necessity to immediately apprehend the escapee makes a warrantless arrest permissible.

---

III. WARRANTLESS ARREST BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (CITIZEN’S ARREST)

• The same rules (Rule 113, Section 5) apply to private individuals.
• Legal Effects:
  • A private individual who makes an arrest must turn over the arrested person to the authorities without unnecessary delay.
  • Failure to comply with procedural safeguards can expose the private individual to liability for illegal detention, among other possible violations.

---

IV. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND SAFEGUARDS

1. Informing the Person Arrested

   • Under the Rules of Court, the person making the arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of (a) the intention to arrest, and (b) the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense or is pursued immediately after its commission.
   • Exception: Where giving such information would imperil the arrest (e.g., violent resistance, immediate flight).

2. Turnover to Proper Authorities

   • Any private person effecting a warrantless arrest must immediately deliver the arrested person to the nearest police station or judicial authority.
   • Law enforcement officers, likewise, must promptly bring the arrested person before the proper judicial authorities for inquest or appropriate proceedings as mandated by the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

3. Inquest Proceedings

   • When a person is arrested without a warrant, the law requires that the person be subjected to an inquest conducted by a public prosecutor.
   • The inquest officer (usually a state prosecutor) determines whether there is a valid basis for continued detention and possible filing of charges.

4. Right to Counsel and Custodial Investigation

   • A warrantless arrest often leads to custodial investigation. Under Philippine law, a person under custodial investigation has the right to be assisted by competent and independent counsel (Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution).
   • Any statement obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible in evidence.

---

V. LEADING JURISPRUDENCE

1. People v. Aminnudin

   • Emphasizes that the arresting officers must strictly comply with the specific requirements for in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrests.
   • Demonstrates that if these requirements are absent, the ensuing arrest and any evidence obtained in the process may be quashed.

2. People v. Gerente

   • Held that “personal knowledge” must be derived from the arresting officer’s own perception of facts or from evidence that truly gives rise to probable cause.
   • Hearsay information, anonymous tips, or unverified intelligence reports are insufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.

3. People v. Tudtud

   • Discusses the significance of immediacy in hot pursuit arrests—time lapses between the commission of the crime and the arrest that are unreasonably long compromise the legality of the arrest.

4. Malacat v. Court of Appeals

   • A leading case that clarifies the “in flagrante delicto” rule and underscores that a mere suspicion or intel does not suffice for a warrantless arrest.

5. Posadas v. Court of Appeals

   • Cites that for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, the law enforcer’s direct and personal observation of the crime as it is being committed is imperative.

---

VI. CONSEQUENCES OF AN INVALID WARRANTLESS ARREST

1. Exclusion of Evidence (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

   • Evidence obtained from an illegal arrest may be suppressed on motion by the accused.
   • The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine means that evidence derived from an unlawful arrest or search may be inadmissible.

2. Possible Dismissal of the Case

   • If the prosecution’s evidence hinges on evidence seized by means of an illegal arrest, the case may suffer dismissal for lack of competent admissible evidence.
   • However, it must be noted that the illegality of the arrest itself does not necessarily divest the court of jurisdiction once an Information is filed. The accused must still object at the earliest possible opportunity; otherwise, he is deemed to have waived the objection to the irregularity of his arrest.

3. Administrative and Criminal Liability of Arresting Officer

   • Law enforcement officers who effect an illegal warrantless arrest can face administrative sanctions (e.g., dismissal from service) and even criminal liability (e.g., arbitrary detention) under the Revised Penal Code if proven to have acted outside the bounds of authority.

---

VII. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR LAW ENFORCERS AND LAWYERS

1. Ascertain Statutory Grounds

   • Before making a warrantless arrest, law enforcers must determine if the situation clearly falls under in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, or if the suspect is an escapee.
   • Document the factual circumstances underlying the probable cause.

2. Be Mindful of Timelines in Hot Pursuit

   • Arresting officers should move quickly, as an unreasonably lengthy interval between the commission of the offense and the arrest undermines the rationale for a hot pursuit arrest.

3. Preserve Evidence and Document Observations

   • Thorough documentation of the observations or circumstances that prompted the arrest is crucial.
   • This will serve as the basis for validating the legality of the arrest during inquest proceedings or in court.

4. Inform the Accused of His Rights

   • The arresting officer must inform the accused of the nature of the offense and his/her rights, especially the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.
   • Ensuring these rights are known and respected not only satisfies constitutional requirements but also preserves the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence.

5. Coordinate with Prosecutors Promptly

   • Upon effecting a warrantless arrest, law enforcers must expedite the inquest process. Delays without justifiable reason can lead to violations of the accused’s rights and possible dismissal of charges.

---

VIII. SUMMARY

In the Philippines, the general rule is that arrests must be carried out with a valid warrant. The exception allows warrantless arrests only under three circumstances enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, namely: in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, and recapturing escapees. Strict adherence to the constitutional requirement of probable cause and the procedural directives of the Rules of Court is indispensable. Failure to comply renders the arrest invalid and any evidence obtained may be inadmissible.

For law enforcers, meticulously documenting the factual bases for the arrest is paramount. For lawyers representing individuals arrested without a warrant, scrutinizing the circumstances of the arrest (timing, personal knowledge, presence, immediacy) is one of the first lines of defense. The interplay between the Bill of Rights and criminal procedure underscores the primacy of protecting individual liberties while allowing the State to enforce its criminal laws effectively.

Ultimately, meticulous compliance with these legal requirements protects both the rights of citizens and the integrity of law enforcement efforts in the Philippine criminal justice system.

Requisites for the issuance of a warrant of arrest | Arrest (RULE 113) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a concise yet comprehensive discussion of the requisites for the issuance of a warrant of arrest under Philippine law, particularly under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure, in relation to the 1987 Philippine Constitution and pertinent jurisprudence.

---

1. Constitutional Basis

a. 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article III, Section 2)

• Text: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
• Key Points:
  1. Probable Cause is required.
  2. It must be personally determined by a judge.
  3. The judge must conduct an examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and/or witnesses (although jurisprudence clarifies the extent of such examination).
  4. The warrant must particularly describe the person/s to be arrested.

The constitutional provision sets the minimum safeguard against arbitrary arrests. Any warrant issued in violation of these requirements is considered void, and the arrest can be quashed.

---

2. Statutory/Procedural Rules: Rule 113 (Arrest) in Relation to Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation)

While the Constitution provides the fundamental requirements, the Rules of Court set forth the procedure by which courts (particularly the trial courts) issue warrants of arrest.

a. Determination of Probable Cause by the Judge (Judicial Determination)

• Upon the filing of an Information or complaint in court, the judge is duty-bound to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence (usually the records of the preliminary investigation, including affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, etc.).

• If the judge finds probable cause to believe:

  1. That an offense has been committed, and
  2. That the accused is probably guilty thereof,

  then the judge will issue a warrant of arrest.

• Alternatively, the judge may opt to personally examine the complainant and his/her witnesses if the court is not satisfied with the documents on record. This is a discretionary step: the judge may require additional evidence or clarifications if the records are insufficient.

b. Personal Examination is Not Always Mandatory

• Leading jurisprudence (e.g., Soliven v. Makasiar, People v. Inting) clarifies that a judge may issue a warrant of arrest based solely on the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents if these are complete and convincing enough to establish probable cause.
• However, should the judge find the records inadequate, the judge must require the submission of additional evidence or personally question witnesses in a searching manner.

c. No Automatic Reliance on Prosecutor’s Findings

• The judge cannot simply rely on the certification or recommendation of the prosecutor. While the prosecutor’s findings of probable cause (often called “executive” or “prosecutorial probable cause”) are crucial, the Constitution requires a separate judicial determination of probable cause.
• Should the judge find no probable cause based on the records, the judge can:
  • Dismiss the case, or
  • Require the prosecution to present additional evidence or clarificatory statements to cure the deficiency.

---

3. What Constitutes “Probable Cause” for Issuing an Arrest Warrant

“Probable cause” for the issuance of an arrest warrant means:

• A reasonable ground of suspicion or belief, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves, to warrant a prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof.

a. Contrast with Preliminary Investigation Probable Cause

• During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor determines if there is sufficient ground to indict the respondent and file an information in court (“executive or prosecutorial probable cause”).
• Once in court, the judge independently determines if there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest (“judicial probable cause”). Both are grounded on the concept of “probable cause,” but they occur in different stages and under different authorities (prosecutor vs. judge).

b. Degree of Evidence

• Probable cause does not require evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also does not require clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of evidence. It merely demands that the evidence leads a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe in the likelihood of the accused’s guilt.

---

4. Procedure Under the Rules

a. Rule 112, Section 6 (When Warrant of Arrest May Issue)

1. Filing of the Information: The information is filed in court upon a finding of probable cause by the prosecutor.
2. Judge’s Evaluation: The judge examines:
   • The information;
   • The affidavits and supporting evidence of the prosecution.
3. Possible Actions by the Judge:
   • Find probable cause and issue a warrant of arrest;
   • If not satisfied, order the prosecutor to present additional evidence or personally examine the witnesses;
   • If probable cause is lacking, dismiss the case or refuse to issue the warrant of arrest.

b. Rule 113, Section 1 (Definition of Arrest)

• An “arrest” is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. A warrant of arrest is the usual means of implementing this process, except in lawful warrantless arrests.

---

5. Jurisprudential Principles

1. People v. Inting: Clarifies that a judge’s personal examination of witnesses is not always mandatory if documentary evidence on record is sufficient. However, if the judge has doubts, then a personal examination is warranted.
2. Soliven v. Makasiar: Emphasizes that “personal determination” of probable cause does not require the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses through questioning. A thorough scrutiny of the preliminary investigation records can suffice.
3. Allado v. Diokno: Stressing that judges cannot be a mere “rubber stamp” of the prosecutor’s findings. There must be an independent judicial determination.

---

6. Summary of Requisites

To validly issue a warrant of arrest, the following must be met:

1. Existence of Probable Cause

   • There is a sufficient factual basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty.

2. Personal Determination by a Judge

   • The judge must independently decide if probable cause exists, not merely rely on a prosecutor’s say-so.

3. Examination Under Oath or Affirmation (If Necessary)

   • If the judge deems the records inadequate or incomplete, the judge must conduct an examination under oath of the complainant and/or any witnesses to supplement the documentary submissions.

4. Particular Description

   • The warrant must clearly identify the person to be arrested and must set forth the offense charged.

5. Constitutional Compliance

   • The judge’s issuance must strictly comply with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to protect the constitutional right against unreasonable seizures.

---

7. Practical/Procedural Notes

• Warrantless Arrest Exceptions: While the subject here is the warrant of arrest, remember there are scenarios where no warrant is necessary (Rule 113, Section 5) such as:

  1. Arrest in flagrante delicto
  2. Hot pursuit
  3. Escapee

  These exceptions do not require the requisites outlined above because they are authorized by law without prior judicial intervention.

• Remedies if Warrant is Invalid:

  • The accused can move to quash the warrant or to dismiss the case if the judge acted in excess of authority or without compliance with the requirements for probable cause.
  • If a suspect is illegally arrested, the arrest’s illegality does not automatically render the subsequent information void. However, evidence obtained as a result of an invalid arrest may be challenged as “fruit of the poisonous tree” if it violates constitutional safeguards.

• Ethical Considerations:

  • Judges must discharge their duty impartially and independently, ensuring not to become a mere conduit of the prosecution.
  • Prosecutors have the ethical duty to present only evidence that supports a finding of probable cause in a just manner. They must also be candid and complete in their submissions to the court to assist the judge’s determination.
  • Defense counsel has the right to challenge any irregularity or deficiency in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

---

8. Key Takeaways

1. Core Constitutional Right: The requirement that “no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause, personally determined by the judge,” is a cornerstone of due process and protection against unreasonable seizures.
2. Dual Probable Cause Determinations: One by the prosecutor (executive) for filing the information, another by the judge (judicial) for issuing the arrest warrant.
3. Not a Rubber Stamp: The judge’s role is active and independent; there must be a real and personal evaluation of the evidence.
4. Consequences of Non-Compliance: An invalid warrant can lead to the suppression of evidence or dismissal of the case; it may also expose the issuing judge or the prosecutor to administrative or civil liability in extreme cases of grave abuse.
5. Practical Litigation Strategy:
   • For the prosecution: Ensure thorough, well-documented, and properly substantiated records during preliminary investigation to streamline the judge’s determination of probable cause.
   • For the defense: Review the Information, evidence, and the judge’s basis for the arrest warrant. Challenge any shortfall in compliance with the rules and constitutional standards.

---

Final Word

The requisites for the issuance of a warrant of arrest revolve around ensuring that no person is arrested absent a well-grounded belief of their commission of a crime, personally confirmed by a judge. This mechanism upholds the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable seizures and underscores the independence and integrity of judicial processes in criminal proceedings in the Philippines.

Arrest, how made | Arrest (RULE 113) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive and meticulous discussion of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Philippines), particularly Section 2, titled “Arrest, How Made.” This includes the legal foundation, requirements, jurisprudential interpretations, and practical guidelines. Please note that while this write-up is designed to be thorough, it is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For specific legal issues, it is always prudent to consult a licensed attorney.

---

I. DEFINITION AND NATURE OF ARREST

1. Statutory Definition

   • Section 1 of Rule 113 defines arrest as “the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.”
   • In effect, arrest is a form of restraint on the liberty of an individual suspected of or charged with a crime, undertaken for the purpose of bringing that person to justice.

2. Distinguishing Arrest from Other Forms of Restraint

   • Arrest vs. Detention
     • Arrest is the initial act of taking custody, whereas detention may continue after a lawful arrest (e.g., in a detention facility or police station).
   • Arrest vs. Search and Seizure
     • Although conceptually linked (e.g., search incidental to lawful arrest), an arrest specifically concerns taking a person into custody, while search and seizure generally refer to property or evidence.

3. Purposes of an Arrest

   • To ensure the appearance of the accused in court.
   • To prevent the accused from committing further harm or escaping.
   • To initiate the criminal justice process, allowing investigation, charging, and trial.

---

II. ARREST, HOW MADE (SECTION 2, RULE 113)

A. Method of Effecting an Arrest

1. Actual Restraint

   • The rule states that an arrest is made “by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested” or physical custody.
   • Restraint does not necessarily require handcuffs; it may be physical holding or any act indicating the intent to deprive the person of liberty.

2. Voluntary Submission

   • Arrest can also occur “by the person’s voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.”
   • For instance, if a suspect, upon learning that the police have a valid warrant, yields to their authority voluntarily without any physical compulsion.

3. No Unnecessary Force

   • Section 2 further provides: “No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subjected to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention.”
   • Excessive force can subject the arresting officer to administrative, civil, or even criminal liability.

B. Duty to Inform

1. Cause of Arrest and Authority

   • The arresting officer must inform the person to be arrested of the following:
     1. Cause of the arrest (i.e., the offense, if with a warrant, or the circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest).
     2. That a warrant has been issued (if applicable), or the basis for a warrantless arrest.
   • This is in line with constitutional due process and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of one’s arrest.

2. Exceptions

   • The officer need not inform the arrestee if:
     • The person flees or forcibly resists arrest before the officer has an opportunity to inform him; or
     • The provision of information would imperil the arrest (e.g., the suspect is armed and dangerous, and immediate action is required to prevent harm).

C. Constitutional Rights upon Arrest

1. Right to be Informed of Constitutional Rights (Miranda Rights)

   • Upon arrest (especially if this leads to custodial investigation), the arrestee must be informed:
     • That he has the right to remain silent;
     • That anything he says can be used against him in court;
     • That he has the right to counsel; and
     • If he cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided.
   • Under Philippine law, custodial investigation begins when a law enforcement officer starts to ask questions intended to elicit admissions or confessions. Hence, reading of Miranda rights is crucial at the start of questioning.

2. Right Against Use of Involuntary Confessions

   • Any confession or admission obtained in violation of these rights is inadmissible in evidence (Article III, Section 12, 1987 Constitution).

---

III. ARREST WITH A WARRANT VS. WARRANTLESS ARREST

A. Arrest with a Warrant

1. Requirements for a Valid Warrant

   • Must be based on probable cause personally determined by the judge;
   • Must particularly describe the person to be arrested;
   • Must be supported by an oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses.

2. Procedure

   • Once a valid warrant is issued:
     • The law enforcement officer may execute the warrant anywhere within the Philippines unless restricted by the court.
     • The officer must identify himself/herself and show the warrant (or at least inform the arrestee of the existence of the warrant) unless providing details would imperil the arrest.

3. Time of Execution

   • Unlike search warrants that must generally be served during daytime, arrest warrants can be served any time of day or night, provided the officer complies with the rules and does not abuse authority.

4. Duty after Execution

   • The arrested person must be brought before the issuing court without unnecessary delay.
   • The officer must make a return on the warrant, detailing how it was executed and the date of arrest.

B. Warrantless Arrests

While the general rule is that no person may be arrested without a valid warrant, the law provides exceptions found in Section 5, Rule 113:

1. In Flagrante Delicto (Section 5[a])

   • When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
   • Requires personal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer: he must witness the criminal act or any overt act indicating the crime is being committed.

2. Hot Pursuit (Section 5[b])

   • When an offense has just been committed, and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.
   • The concept of “just been committed” implies an element of immediacy or recentness, and the officer’s inference of probable cause must be grounded on overt facts, not mere suspicion.

3. Escapee (Section 5[c])

   • When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment, a place where he is serving final judgment, or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or while being transferred from one confinement to another.
   • Here, the legal basis is that the escapee is under an existing legal process or custody; thus, no new warrant is necessary.

4. Additional Jurisprudentially Recognized Instances

   • Citizen’s Arrest: Private individuals may perform warrantless arrests under the same circumstances (in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, or escape of detainees). However, they must immediately deliver the arrested person to the nearest peace officer or judicial authority.
   • Extended Hot Pursuit Doctrine: In some cases, the Supreme Court has recognized that there can be a continuing pursuit, so long as the pursuit is not unreasonably remote in time or circumstance.

---

IV. PROCEDURE AFTER ARREST

1. Delivery to Proper Authorities

   • The arresting officer must deliver the arrested person to the nearest police station or jail without delay, along with a statement of the circumstances of the arrest.
   • Failure to do so may render the arresting officer liable for arbitrary detention or other violations.

2. Booking and Documentation

   • The arrested person is usually subjected to booking procedures: personal information, fingerprinting, taking of photographs, and other identifying details.

3. Filing of Appropriate Complaint or Information

   • The prosecutor must evaluate whether there is sufficient basis (probable cause) to formally charge the accused in court.
   • If the prosecutor finds probable cause, an Information is filed in court. If the case was initiated by complaint, it goes through inquest or preliminary investigation, as required by law.

4. Right to Bail

   • If the offense is bailable, the accused has the right to be released on bail pending trial, subject to conditions imposed by the court.
   • This is rooted in the Constitutional right to bail, except for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong.

---

V. LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Legal Ethics for Arresting Officers and Counsel

   • Law enforcement officers must always act in good faith, adhere to constitutional mandates, and respect the dignity and rights of the arrestee.
   • Lawyers who represent arrested persons must ensure that the arrestee’s constitutional rights are upheld at every stage—especially the right to counsel, right to remain silent, and protection against torture or coercive interrogation.

2. Consequences of Unlawful Arrest

   • An unlawful arrest may lead to:
     • Exclusion of evidence obtained (as “fruit of the poisonous tree” if linked to a constitutional violation).
     • Potential administrative, civil, or criminal liability for the arresting officer for violations of the Revised Penal Code provisions on illegal detention (Articles 124-126) or for abuse of authority.
   • Courts can also quash or dismiss the case if the arrest was unconstitutional and the subsequent proceedings are fatally defective.

3. Remedies of a Person Unlawfully Arrested

   • Motion to Quash the Information based on lack of jurisdiction over the person, if the arrest was invalid.
   • Habeas Corpus if illegally detained.
   • Administrative and/or criminal complaint against erring officers.

---

VI. JURISPRUDENTIAL HIGHLIGHTS

1. People v. Burgos (144 SCRA 1)

   • Reinforced the necessity that a warrantless arrest must strictly fall under the exceptions; otherwise, it is invalid.

2. Posadas v. Court of Appeals (188 SCRA 288)

   • Clarified that the right to question an illegal arrest is deemed waived if the accused fails to move to quash before arraignment and voluntarily enters a plea.

3. Malacat v. Court of Appeals (283 SCRA 159)

   • Distinguished between a valid in flagrante delicto arrest and circumstances amounting only to suspicion; insisted on strict compliance with the requirements of in flagrante delicto arrests.

4. Valeroso v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 164815)

   • Emphasized the necessity of “overt acts” that demonstrate probable cause for a hot pursuit arrest.

---

VII. PRACTICAL POINTERS

• Identify Authority: An arresting officer (whether police or a private citizen) must clearly state the authority or reason for the arrest, except under extreme circumstances where immediate action is required.
• Avoid Excessive Force: Only the minimal amount of force necessary to subdue and detain the suspect is permissible.
• Inform Constitutional Rights: Immediately inform the arrestee of their Miranda rights if custodial investigation is to follow.
• Documentation Is Key: Keep accurate records of the time, place, manner, and circumstances of the arrest, including any resistance or use of force.
• Deliver to Nearest Station: Swiftly turn over the arrestee to the proper authorities for booking and inquest or preliminary investigation (if warranted).
• Legal Counsel: Arrested persons should promptly be given access to a lawyer, and the lawyer should verify that all steps taken by the arresting officer complied with the law.

---

VIII. CONCLUSION

Rule 113, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governs how an arrest in the Philippines must be executed—either by actual restraint or by voluntary submission to authority. Accompanying provisions in Sections 5 and 6 clarify when warrantless arrests are permissible and the duties imposed on arresting officers thereafter. At all stages, both constitutional and ethical duties compel law enforcement and legal practitioners to safeguard the rights of the person arrested, ensuring that the arrest process itself withstands legal scrutiny and upholds the rule of law.

A thorough understanding of these rules—alongside attentive adherence to the 1987 Philippine Constitution and controlling jurisprudence—is essential to maintaining the balance between public order and individual rights.

Arrest (RULE 113) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive and meticulous discussion on the topic of Arrest under Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, with relevant references to Remedial Law, Legal Ethics, and Legal Forms. I have organized it under several headings for clarity and completeness.

---

I. DEFINITION AND NATURE OF ARREST

A. Statutory Definition (Section 1, Rule 113)

• Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
• It involves a physical restraint of liberty, effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary submission to the custody of one with authority to make the arrest.

B. Constitutional Basis

• The 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Article III (Bill of Rights), imposes limits and safeguards against arbitrary arrests:
  • Section 2: The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures; no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by the judge.
  • Section 12: Rights of a person under custodial investigation, including the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.

---

II. WHO MAY EFFECT THE ARREST

A. Peace Officers or Law Enforcement Officers

• Primarily, arrests are carried out by duly authorized peace officers (e.g., members of the Philippine National Police, National Bureau of Investigation, etc.).
• Section 2, Rule 113: A peace officer or a private person may, under certain conditions, make an arrest.

B. Private Persons (Citizen’s Arrest)

• While arrests are generally the duty of police officers, a private person may lawfully make an arrest under the circumstances outlined in Section 5, Rule 113 (warrantless arrests).
• Once the private person makes the arrest, the person arrested must be delivered “without unnecessary delay” to the nearest police station or jail.

---

III. ARREST WITH A WARRANT (Sections 3 and 4, Rule 113)

A. Requisite of a Valid Warrant of Arrest

1. Issued by a competent judge: The judge must have jurisdiction over the offense charged.
2. Supported by probable cause: The determination of probable cause must be made personally by the judge after an examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses.
3. Particularity: The warrant must clearly identify the person to be arrested and the offense charged.

B. Procedure After Issuance

• Once the warrant of arrest is issued, it is duty-bound upon the law enforcement officers to implement it promptly.
• No bail recommended: The warrant typically states if the offense is bailable or not; if it is, the corresponding bail amount is often indicated.

---

IV. ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT (Section 5, Rule 113)

Rule 113, Section 5 enumerates the lawful instances of arrest without a warrant, commonly referred to as warrantless arrests:

1. In Flagrante Delicto (Section 5[a])

   • When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the officer or private person.
   • The arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person is in the act of committing the offense.

2. Hot Pursuit (Section 5[b])

   • When an offense has just been committed and the officer has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested committed it.
   • The term “just committed” requires the element of immediacy in the pursuit, and the officer must have direct knowledge linking the suspect to the crime.

3. Escapee (Section 5[c])

   • When a person who has been lawfully arrested or confined (e.g., serving sentence, detained while under investigation, or while waiting trial) escapes from detention or confinement.
   • The officer or private person may immediately rearrest the escapee without a new warrant.

A. Other Recognized Exceptions in Jurisprudence

• Stop and Frisk (Terry Searches): While technically not an arrest, minimal search and seizure for weapons (and by extension some contraband) in suspicious circumstances may be allowed under certain strict conditions.
• Checkpoints: Valid if conducted in a way that does not violate constitutional rights, is authorized, and is limited to a routine inspection.

---

V. MANNER OF MAKING THE ARREST

A. Section 2, Rule 113

• Arrest is made by actual restraint of a person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary submission to custody.

B. Time and Place of Arrest

• In principle, an arrest can be effected at any time of the day or night, except as limited by other specific rules (e.g., searching a dwelling at night with no proper warrant to search).

C. Authority to Break Into a Building (Section 11, Rule 113)

• When the person to be arrested is inside a building or enclosure and has refused to open the door or allow entry, the officer (with or without a warrant, as lawful under the circumstances) may break into the premises after giving notice of authority and purpose if admittance is refused.
• Similarly, after a lawful arrest, the officer may break out if necessary to free himself or the person arrested if detained.

D. Rights of the Person Arrested

• Section 12, Article III of the Constitution provides:
  1. Right to be informed of the cause of the arrest.
  2. Right to remain silent.
  3. Right to counsel (competent and independent).
  4. Right to be visited by or consult with any relative, medical doctor, priest or religious minister, and the right to remain incommunicado is disallowed unless provided by law.
• RA 7438 further defines the rights of persons under custodial investigation and prescribes penalties for violations thereof.

---

VI. AFTER THE ARREST: PROCEDURE AND DUTIES

A. Delivery to Nearest Police Station

• Section 6, Rule 113: The arrested person must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay.
• Immediate documentation (e.g., booking, blotter entry) must be made.

B. Inquest, Bail, or Other Judicial Proceedings

• Inquest Proceedings: If the arrest was warrantless, and the crime is cognizable by the prosecutor’s office, the arrested person should be subjected to inquest proceedings promptly.
• Bail: If the offense is bailable, the accused may apply for bail with the court.
• If the arrest was by virtue of a warrant, the accused shall be brought before the court that issued the warrant (or any court if immediate appearance before the issuing court is not feasible) for appropriate proceedings.

---

VII. LEGAL ETHICS CONCERNS

A. Duties of Lawyers in Arrest Situations

1. Ensuring Constitutional Rights: A lawyer must safeguard the client’s constitutional rights against illegal arrests and searches.
2. Avoiding Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer represents multiple parties in a criminal case, ethical obligations to each client must be carefully observed.
3. Upholding Confidentiality: A lawyer must maintain confidentiality of client communications, especially during custodial investigations.
4. Zealous Representation Within the Bounds of Law: A lawyer must never advise or assist a client in conduct known to be illegal (e.g., resisting a lawful arrest by force), but must actively challenge unlawful arrests.

B. Canon and Code of Professional Responsibility

• Canon 14: A lawyer shall not refuse to render legal advice to the defenseless or the oppressed. This principle underpins the lawyer’s duty to assist during or after an arrest when an accused’s rights might be violated.
• Canon 8 & 10: Obligation to maintain fairness and candor in dealing with the court and the client, ensuring that claims of illegal arrest are raised truthfully and appropriately.

---

VIII. COMMON LEGAL FORMS RELATED TO ARREST

Below are examples of forms and their usual content. These are templates and must be tailored to specific facts and jurisdictions.

1. Application for a Warrant of Arrest

   • Title/Caption: “Republic of the Philippines, Regional Trial Court, etc.”
   • Applicant: The prosecutor or complainant.
   • Affidavit or sworn statement showing the facts constituting probable cause.
   • Prayer: “Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that a Warrant of Arrest be issued against (Name of Accused).”

   Sample Template:

   REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
   REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
   [Branch Number], [City]
   
   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,           CRIM CASE NO. ______
   Plaintiff,
   
   - versus -
   
   [Name of Accused],
   Accused.
   -------------------------------------/
   
                     APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST
   
   COMES NOW the undersigned Prosecutor, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states that:
   
   1. On [date], a Complaint for [Offense] was filed against [Name of Accused].
   2. Affidavits and supporting documents, attached hereto, show that there is probable cause to believe that [Name of Accused] committed the crime of [Offense].
   3. In order that the accused may be brought within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, it is necessary that a warrant for his/her arrest be issued.
   
   WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that a Warrant of Arrest be issued against the accused, [Name of Accused], to answer for the offense of [Offense].
   
   Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
   
   Respectfully submitted this __ day of [Month, Year] at [Place].
   
   __________________________
   [Name and Signature]
   Prosecutor
   Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor

2. Return of Warrant of Arrest

   • After serving a warrant of arrest, law enforcement must submit a “Return” to the court stating how it was executed (date, time, place), or stating the reasons if it was not executed.

   Sample Template:

   REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
   REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
   [Branch Number], [City]
   
   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,           CRIM CASE NO. ______
   Plaintiff,
   
   - versus -
   
   [Name of Accused],
   Accused.
   -------------------------------------/
   
                              SHERIFF’S (POLICE) RETURN
   
   I, [Name of Officer], hereby state that on [date], by virtue of the Warrant of Arrest issued by the Honorable Court dated [date], I proceeded to serve the said warrant upon [Name of Accused] at [Address].
   
   The arrest was accomplished on [date] at approximately [time], without incident. The accused was thereafter brought to [Police Station/Court Detention] for proper documentation and disposition.
   
   I respectfully submit this Return to this Honorable Court on this __ day of [Month, Year] at [Place].
   
   __________________________
   [Name and Signature]
   [Rank, Position]

3. Counter-Affidavit or Affidavit of Arresting Officer (Warrantless Arrest)

   • In cases of warrantless arrests, the arresting officer may be required to submit a sworn statement explaining the circumstances of the arrest, attesting that it falls under one of the exceptions (in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, or escapee).

---

IX. IMPORTANT JURISPRUDENCE

1. People v. Molinga – Emphasizes strict adherence to the requirements for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.
2. People v. Bansil – Clarifies the element of immediacy in hot pursuit arrests.
3. Posadas v. Court of Appeals – On the requirement that the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts for a valid warrantless arrest.
4. Umil v. Ramos – Recognizes the rule that in certain crimes like rebellion, arrests without warrant may be justified if the suspect is caught in the act or under hot pursuit.

---

X. PRACTICAL POINTS AND REMINDERS

1. Always Verify if the Arresting Officer Followed Proper Procedure:

   • Was there a valid warrant?
   • If none, does it fall under any of the recognized warrantless arrest exceptions?

2. Immediately Assert Rights:

   • Accused must be informed of the nature of the arrest and the right to remain silent and counsel.
   • Illegal arrests can lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine).

3. Timely Challenge Illegal Arrests:

   • File the necessary motions (Motion to Quash Warrant, Motion to Suppress Evidence) if the arrest was unconstitutional.
   • However, note that an illegal arrest does not necessarily deprive the court of jurisdiction once the accused appears or pleads. The main remedy is to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of the illegal arrest.

4. Role of a Lawyer:

   • Ensure that the client is not subjected to intimidation, violence, or any form of coercion.
   • Guide the client in understanding their rights and possible defenses.
   • Promptly coordinate with prosecutors, inquest officers, or the court for the accused’s release on bail or personal recognizance if appropriate.

5. Documentation:

   • Keep thorough records of time, place, manner, and all circumstances surrounding the arrest, which are crucial in evaluating its legality.

---

CONCLUSION

Rule 113 (Arrest) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines lays down the legal framework for depriving an individual of liberty for purposes of answering for a criminal offense. It is a critical component of Remedial Law because it directly impacts constitutional rights related to due process and personal liberty.

• Arrests must conform strictly to constitutional safeguards, whether effected with or without a warrant.
• Legal ethics mandates that lawyers safeguard the accused’s rights while ensuring adherence to lawful procedures.
• Legal forms such as applications for warrants and returns on warrants are procedural tools that reflect due compliance with the law and safeguard against arbitrary detention.

Mastery of these provisions, ethical guidelines, and the proper use of legal forms is indispensable for practitioners, law enforcement officers, and citizens alike. Understanding the nuances of Rule 113 is vital to preserving the balance between law enforcement interests and the protection of individual liberties.