Concurrent Warrant of Arrest and Arraignment in Criminal Proceedings

Below is a comprehensive discussion on the concept and practice of issuing (or applying for) a Warrant of Arrest concurrently with setting an Arraignment in Philippine criminal proceedings. The discussion is organized for clarity, citing the pertinent rules, procedures, and jurisprudential guidelines.

I. Introduction

In Philippine criminal procedure, two critical milestones early in the life of a criminal case are:

  1. The issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against the accused; and
  2. The Arraignment of the accused.

Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, both steps are governed by separate but related processes—each with its own requirements and timelines. Questions sometimes arise as to whether a court may (or should) issue a Warrant of Arrest and then immediately set the arraignment or do both acts “concurrently.” This practice touches on critical due process rights, the judge’s duty to determine probable cause, and the accused’s right to challenge the validity of both the case and the arrest.

II. The Legal Framework

A. Constitutional Basis

  1. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

    • Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees that no person shall be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant of arrest can only issue upon “probable cause” to be personally determined by the judge.

  2. Due Process Clause

    • Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This undergirds all aspects of criminal procedure, including the proper sequence and timing of arrest and arraignment.

B. Statutory and Procedural Rules

  1. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

    • Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation): Governs the procedure before the case is filed in court, including the determination of probable cause by the public prosecutor (or authorized officer).
    • Rule 113 (Arrest): Specifies the manner by which a warrant of arrest is issued and the grounds on which such warrant may be issued.
    • Rule 116 (Arraignment and Plea): Prescribes the period within which the accused must be arraigned (generally within 30 days from the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused).

  2. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (Rule 112, Section 5)

    • Upon the filing of a complaint or information, the court must personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
    • If the judge finds probable cause, the judge shall issue a warrant of arrest (or a commitment order if the accused is already detained).
    • If the judge has doubts as to the existence of probable cause, the judge may require the prosecutor to submit additional evidence.

  3. Arraignment (Rule 116)

    • Arraignment is the stage where the accused is formally informed of the charge in open court, and the accused enters a plea.
    • It must be done within 30 days from the time the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
    • Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is typically acquired once the accused is arrested, or surrenders, or voluntarily appears before the court (such as by posting bail).

C. Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Accused

  • For arraignment to proceed validly, the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused (obtained by arrest, voluntary surrender, or bail).
  • If the accused is not yet under the custody of the law or has not submitted to the court’s jurisdiction in any manner, scheduling an arraignment is generally premature.

III. The Usual Sequence of Events

  1. Filing of the Information

    • After preliminary investigation, the prosecutor files the Information in court if there is probable cause.

  2. Judge’s Evaluation of Probable Cause

    • The court conducts its own determination of probable cause (distinct from the prosecutor’s finding). If probable cause is found, the judge issues the Warrant of Arrest (or an order of arrest).

  3. Service of the Warrant / Voluntary Appearance

    • The accused is either arrested or voluntarily appears (or surrenders).
    • If the accused posts bail, the court acquires jurisdiction over his/her person.

  4. Arraignment

    • Once the accused is under the court’s jurisdiction, the court sets the arraignment.
    • Arraignment typically must occur within 30 days from the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the accused.

IV. “Concurrent” Issuance of Warrant of Arrest and Setting of Arraignment

A. What Does “Concurrent” Mean?

In practice, “concurrent” or “simultaneous” issuance of the Warrant of Arrest and the setting of the arraignment can appear in two ways:

  1. Single Order for Both Warrant and Arraignment Date:
    The court issues a Warrant of Arrest after finding probable cause and, in the same order or in close succession, schedules the arraignment on a specific date.

  2. Immediate Scheduling Upon Filing of the Case:
    Sometimes the court, upon receipt of the Information, immediately sets the arraignment date without waiting for the outcome of the arrest or the appearance of the accused.

B. Potential Legal Concerns

  1. Due Process and Right to Challenge Probable Cause

    • The accused, upon learning of the filing of the case, may want to challenge the existence of probable cause or file a motion to quash the Information on certain grounds.
    • If the court immediately sets the arraignment without waiting for the arrest or without giving the accused an opportunity to challenge probable cause, the due process right to be heard before being forced to plea could be undermined.

  2. Jurisdictional Issues

    • A court cannot arraign an accused over whom it has not yet acquired jurisdiction.
    • Setting an arraignment date prior to effecting arrest or prior to any appearance by the accused may be rendered moot if the accused is never brought to court.

  3. Practical and Logistical Complications

    • If an arraignment is set prematurely, the accused might not receive timely notice (especially if not yet arrested). This could result in repeated postponements and inefficiency.

C. SC Guidelines and Jurisprudence

While there is no absolute prohibition on issuing a Warrant of Arrest and simultaneously setting the arraignment, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized in various rulings that:

  1. Judges Must First Determine Probable Cause

    • A judge’s personal determination of probable cause is mandatory before any warrant issues.

  2. Arraignment Should Not Preempt Accused’s Rights

    • Arraignment triggers many procedural rights and obligations (e.g., the running of certain periods for filing motions, the acceptance of a plea, etc.).
    • The Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts to ensure the accused’s right to challenge the Information or to explore available remedies (motion to quash, motion to reinvestigate) is not curtailed.

  3. Timing Is Important for Fundamental Fairness

    • The principle in Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, 1987) reiterates that once an Information is filed, the case is generally within the court’s discretion to proceed. However, that discretion must be exercised in a manner respecting due process and the requirement of personal evaluation of probable cause.
    • Courts have been reminded to avoid precipitous arraignments that can hamper the accused’s rights (for instance, the right to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the prosecutor’s resolution or a Motion to Quash).

Because of these guidelines, a “concurrent” issuance of the Warrant of Arrest and an order setting arraignment is typically acceptable only if:

  • The judge has already determined probable cause;
  • The court has reasonable assurance that the accused will be under its jurisdiction (e.g., the accused is in custody or has manifested an intent to surrender or post bail soon); and
  • The accused is not denied a reasonable opportunity to mount a defense or to challenge the legality of the proceedings prior to arraignment.

V. Rights and Remedies of the Accused

If a court schedules arraignment concurrently with the issuance of a warrant of arrest (or sets arraignment too soon), the accused may:

  1. Move to Defer Arraignment

    • The accused can file a Motion to Defer Arraignment on justifiable grounds—such as the pendency of a Motion to Quash the Information, a Motion for Reinvestigation, or a challenge to probable cause.

  2. Move to Quash the Warrant of Arrest

    • If the accused believes there was no valid probable cause for issuing the warrant, a motion to quash may be filed.

  3. Challenge the Information (Motion to Quash)

    • The accused may question the Information (e.g., for lack of jurisdiction, defective form, or that the facts do not constitute an offense). Under the Rules, such a motion should be resolved prior to arraignment if timely raised.

  4. File a Petition for Certiorari

    • If the accused believes the court acted with grave abuse of discretion by prematurely setting the arraignment or issuing a warrant without proper determination of probable cause, a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be an option (though it is an extraordinary remedy and must meet strict standards).

VI. Best Practices for Courts

  1. Ensure Proper Probable Cause Determination

    • The judge should separately and independently evaluate the evidence submitted by the prosecution before issuing the Warrant of Arrest.

  2. Avoid Setting Arraignment Before Jurisdiction Over the Accused Is Established

    • Wait until the accused is served with the warrant, surrenders, or posts bail.
    • Provide sufficient time for the accused to receive notice and prepare.

  3. Respect the Accused’s Right to File Preliminary Motions

    • Allow the accused a reasonable period to file a Motion to Quash the Information or a Motion for Reinvestigation before setting arraignment.

  4. Maintain Clear Orders

    • If the court is minded to set the arraignment date in the same order issuing the Warrant of Arrest, the order should specify that the arraignment date is subject to the accused being placed under the court’s jurisdiction and after resolution of any timely motions.

VII. Conclusion

In the Philippine criminal justice system, while there is no outright ban on issuing a Warrant of Arrest and setting Arraignment at or near the same time, courts and practitioners must ensure adherence to due process, respect the judge’s obligation to personally determine probable cause, and preserve the accused’s procedural rights.

  • Concurrent or near-simultaneous issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and notice of Arraignment is valid only if it does not violate the rights of the accused to challenge the case before plea, and if the court already has (or can quickly and lawfully acquire) jurisdiction over the accused.
  • Premature setting of arraignment can lead to potential due process violations and might be subject to challenge or reversal on appeal or certiorari.

Ultimately, the key is proper sequencing and respect for the accused’s rights: (1) personal determination of probable cause for the Warrant of Arrest; (2) lawful acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused (via arrest, surrender, or bail); and (3) arraignment within the legally prescribed period, with the accused having the full opportunity to file any preliminary or jurisdictional challenges.

References and Further Reading

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Secs. 1, 2.
  • Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rules 112, 113, 114, 116.
  • Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987.
  • Supreme Court Administrative Circulars regarding Preliminary Investigation and Probable Cause Determination.
  • Relevant jurisprudence on Motions to Quash, Deferment of Arraignment, and Due Process in criminal proceedings.

This article is meant for general informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. For specific concerns, consulting a licensed attorney is recommended.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login