Below is a comprehensive discussion of Rule 113 of the 1964 Rules of Court in the Philippines. Although the 1964 Rules have since been superseded and amended by subsequent revisions (particularly the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect in December 2000), understanding Rule 113 as it was originally formulated in 1964 is crucial for appreciating the evolution of procedural law on arrest in the Philippines.

1. Historical and Legal Context

Promulgation of the 1964 Rules of Court
- The 1964 Rules of Court were promulgated by authority of the Supreme Court of the Philippines under the 1935 Constitution. They came into effect to unify and codify procedural aspects in both civil and criminal cases.
- Rule 113, specifically, governed the procedure and legal standards for arrest in criminal cases. Over time, this rule was refined by jurisprudence, and later by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000) to adapt to changing interpretations of constitutional rights and law enforcement practices.
Relevance and Subsequent Amendments
- Many of the principles enshrined in the 1964 version of Rule 113 still resonate with current procedures. However, certain specifics—such as the enumeration of instances allowing warrantless arrest, the manner of informing suspects of their rights, and jurisprudential clarifications on “hot pursuit” arrests—have evolved.
- Despite its age, references to the 1964 version of Rule 113 still surface in older Supreme Court decisions and in discussions of the historical development of criminal procedure in the Philippines.

2. Scope and Coverage of Rule 113 (1964 Rules of Court)

Under the 1964 Rules of Court, Rule 113 was entitled “Arrest” and provided a framework for:

Definition of Arrest
- Arrest was defined as “the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.” This highlights that the primary purpose of an arrest is to secure the person’s appearance in a criminal proceeding.
By Whom and How an Arrest Is Made
- Rule 113 distinguished between arrests made with a warrant (issued by a judge) and without a warrant under specific circumstances.
- Only lawful officers or private persons expressly authorized by law could effectuate an arrest, and they had to abide by certain guidelines.
Procedure for Arrest With a Warrant
- The Rule mandated that an arresting officer (or private individual, when authorized) must have a valid warrant issued by a court.
- The warrant had to be executed by making the person to be arrested aware of the authority under which the arrest was being made and, as far as practicable, by showing the warrant.
Procedure for Arrest Without a Warrant
- Consistent with historical practice, the 1964 text recognized specific circumstances in which warrantless arrests were valid, such as:
  1. In Flagrante Delicto – When the person to be arrested was actually committing, or attempting to commit, an offense in the presence of the officer (or private person, if authorized).
  2. Hot Pursuit – When an offense had just been committed and the arresting officer or private person had probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested committed the offense.
  3. Escapees or Fugitives – When a person who has escaped from confinement or is the subject of a lawful order of arrest is at large.
Duty to Inform the Person Arrested
- The Rule also provided that the arresting individual must inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant was issued (if applicable), except when the person was then engaged in the commission of an offense or was being pursued immediately after its commission.
Right to Use Force
- The 1964 Rule 113 recognized that, if necessary, some degree of force might be used to effect the arrest, but only that which was reasonable to ensure custody. Unnecessary violence or use of excessive force was disallowed, and remains disallowed under the Revised Rules.
Summoning Assistance
- Another provision covered the authority of the arresting individual to call upon as many persons as needed to assist in effecting the arrest. This is preserved in subsequent versions of Rule 113.
Breaking Into a Building or Enclosure
- If the person to be arrested was hiding or refused admittance, the 1964 Rule 113 provided that, after announcing authority and purpose, the arresting officer could break into a building or enclosure to make the arrest.
- The same principle applied when it became necessary to break out of a building to effectively carry out the arrest or to secure the arrested person.
Search of the Person Arrested
- Under the 1964 rules, the arresting officer could search the arrested individual for weapons or evidence on his or her person to ensure the safety of the officer and to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence.

3. Key Provisions of Rule 113 (1964) in a Nutshell

While the section numbers and exact language of the 1964 Rules of Court can vary in different published compilations, the core sections commonly addressed the following:

Section 1: Definition of Arrest
Section 2: Arrest; How Made
Section 3: Duty of Officer to Inform Arrested Person
Section 4: Warrantless Arrest (Enumerated Instances)
Section 5: Right to Summon Assistance
Section 6: Right to Break into a Building
Section 7: Right to Break Out
Section 8: Search of Person Arrested

These provisions established the legal architecture for arrest, balancing the state’s interest in enforcement of criminal law with individual rights.

4. Constitutional Underpinnings and Interplay with the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights (1935 Constitution)
- Even under the 1964 Rules, the fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures (then found in Section 1[3], Article III of the 1935 Constitution) informed the interpretation of Rule 113. The issuance of arrest warrants was closely tied to the probable cause requirement determined personally by a judge.
Custodial Rights
- Subsequent jurisprudence, especially after the 1973 Constitution and then the 1987 Constitution, expanded on the rights of persons under custodial investigation (Miranda rights, etc.). The seeds of these protections existed in the 1964 rules—particularly the emphasis on informing the arrested person of the cause of the arrest and showing the warrant when feasible.
Due Process
- The principle of due process meant that an arrest had to be lawful and had to strictly follow the procedures laid out in Rule 113. Any arrest that failed to comply could be declared invalid and any evidence obtained could be excluded.

5. Illustrative Jurisprudence

Even though these rulings might cite the 1964 Rule 113, many remain influential and continue to be cited in discussions of valid arrest procedures:

People v. Delgado (1970s)
- Emphasized the necessity for police officers to strictly comply with the warrant requirement except in clearly established circumstances for warrantless arrests. This case examined what constituted “probable cause” in hot pursuit scenarios.
People v. Burgos (1970s)
- Clarified the definition of “in flagrante delicto.” The Supreme Court interpreted that the suspect should be caught in the act or immediately thereafter, ensuring that the officer personally observed facts or circumstances that gave rise to probable cause.
Older Cases on Reasonable Force
- Early jurisprudence under the 1964 Rules highlighted that “only reasonable force necessary” should be exerted to prevent escape or resistance during arrest. Courts evaluated whether officers had used force proportionate to the threat or resistance posed.
Cases on Private Persons’ Arrest
- The Supreme Court under the 1964 Rules took a strict view of when private persons could legally effect an arrest without a warrant—limited to the same grounds (in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, or an escapee from custody). Improper exercise of this power could expose a private individual to criminal liability for illegal detention or coercion.

6. Comparison with the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 113, 2000)

The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (effective 2000) reorganized and, in some aspects, expanded or clarified the content of Rule 113:

Reiteration and Expansion of the Grounds for Warrantless Arrest
- The three classical grounds remain, but clarifications have been inserted regarding “personal knowledge” of facts by the arresting officer in hot pursuit.
Greater Emphasis on Constitutional Rights
- Requirements to inform the suspect of his or her rights under custodial investigation are now more explicitly tied to the Constitution and relevant legislation (e.g., Republic Act No. 7438).
Contemporary Principles
- Modern jurisprudence has also introduced the concept of “continuing offenses” (e.g., certain crimes that are ongoing) as possible grounds for warrantless arrest. This was a development spurred by subsequent case law, but it echoes the fundamental principles laid down in the 1964 rule.
Streamlined Language
- The structure remains similar—defining arrest, describing the process with and without a warrant, and specifying the manner of effecting arrest—but with updated language to reflect current Constitutional and statutory references.

7. Practical Significance in Philippine Legal Education and Practice

Historical Value
- Law students, scholars, and practitioners often review the 1964 version of Rule 113 to understand the evolution of procedural due process and the interplay between criminal procedure rules and constitutional guarantees.
Residual References in Old Cases
- Older Supreme Court decisions, which are still binding precedents unless overturned, refer to the provisions of the 1964 Rules of Court. Familiarity with those references helps attorneys and judges interpret the modern rules.
Continuity of Doctrines
- Many principles found in the 1964 Rules—especially regarding when an arrest is valid or invalid—remain substantially the same. The continuity of legal doctrines underscores that the essential aim of Rule 113 has not changed: balancing law enforcement prerogatives with individual liberties.

8. Conclusion

Rule 113 of the 1964 Rules of Court represented a key component in the Philippine criminal justice system’s procedural framework. Its provisions codified the requirements for a valid arrest, whether with or without a warrant, and underscored the fundamental principle that an individual’s liberty can only be curtailed under strict legal processes. Although superseded by the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure in 2000, the 1964 version of Rule 113 laid the groundwork for the system we have today. Its historical importance persists in jurisprudential references and remains an essential topic of study for those seeking a complete understanding of Philippine criminal procedure.

Key Takeaways

Rule 113 (1964) primarily addressed the procedure for effecting an arrest, both with and without a warrant.
It codified the powers and obligations of arresting officers and private citizens, including the duty to inform the arrestee of the cause of arrest and to use only reasonable force.
Subsequent revisions have retained the core principles but introduced clarifications in light of constitutional developments and judicial rulings.
Studying Rule 113 (1964) illuminates how Philippine criminal procedure has evolved while retaining its fundamental principles.

In sum, Rule 113 of the 1964 Rules of Court is a foundational legal framework that continues to inform current arrest procedures and interpretations. Although updated rules are now in place, understanding the historical roots of arrest procedures remains critical for Philippine legal practitioners, scholars, and students.