On
Arrest Without A Warrant; When Lawful

Section 5.

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

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

LAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST:

1. When IN HIS PRESENCE, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (in flagrante delicto arrests).

2. When an offense has in fact been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of fact and circumstance that the person to be arrested has committed it
(Doctrine of Hot Pursuit).

3. 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.

4. When a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued (Sec. 13, Rule 113).

5. By the bondsman for the purpose of surrendering the accused (Sec. 23, Rule 113).

6. Where the accused attempts to leave the country without permission of the court (Sec. 23, Rule 114).

NOTES:

1. In a citizen’s arrest, the person may be arrested and searched of his body and of his personal effects or belongings, for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without need of a search warrant.

2. Sec. 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto while Sec. 5(b) refers to hot pursuit.

3. Sec. 5(b) authorizes warrantless arrest “when an offense has in fact just been committed.” The word “just” implies immediacy in point of time.

4. Delivery of the detained person to the proper judicial authorities means the filing of the complaint or information with the municipal trial court or with the inquest fiscal or prosecutor who shall then decide either to order the release of the detained person or to file the corresponding information in court.

An accused who enters his plea of NOT guilty and participates in the trial waives the illegality of the arrest. Objection to the illegality must be raised before arraignment, otherwise, it is deemed waived, as the accused had voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Bar Exam Question (2006)

When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful? Explain. 
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a valid warrant.
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense,
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it, and
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from 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 (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).

Bar Exam Question (2004)

Arrest; Warrantless Arrest; Preliminary Investigation (2004)

AX swindled RY in the amount of Php 10,000 sometime in mid-2003. On the strength of the sworn statement given by RY personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos sometime in mid-2004, and without securing a warrant, the police officer arrested AX. Forthwith the police officer filed with the City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for estafa supported by RY"s sworn statement and other documentary evidence. After due inquest, the prosecutor filed the requisite information with the MM RTC. No preliminary investigation was conducted either before or after the filing of the information and the accused at no time asked for such an investigation. However, before arraignment, the accused moved to quash the information on the ground that the prosecutor suffered from a want of authority to file the information because of his failure to conduct a preliminary investigation before filing the information, as required by the Rules of Court. Is the warrantless arrest of AX valid? Is he entitled to a preliminary investigation before the filing of the information? Explain. 

Suggested Answer:

No. The warrantless arrest is not valid because the alleged offense has not just been committed. The crime was allegedly committed one year before the arrest. (Sec. 5 (b) of Rule 113).

Yes, he is entitled to a preliminary investigation because he was not lawfully arrested without a warrant (See Sec. 7 of Rule 112). He can move for a reinvestigation.

Alternative Answer:

He is not entitled to a preliminary investigation because the penalty for estafa is the sum of Php 10,000 does not exceed 4 years and 2 months. Under Sec. 1, second par., Rule 112, a preliminary investigation is not required. (Note: The penalty is not stated in the question.)

Bar Exam Question (1997)

Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Searches (1997)

A was killed by B during a quarrel over a hostess in a nightclub. Two days after the incident, and upon complaint of the widow of A, the police arrested B without a warrant of arrest and searched his house without a search warrant. 

a) Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which was seized during the search of the house of B, be admitted in evidence? 
b) Is the arrest of B legal? 
c) Under the circumstances, can B be convicted of homicide?

Suggested Answer:

a) No. The gun seized during the search of the house of B without a search warrant is not admissible in evidence. (Secs. 2 and 3[2], Art. III of Constitution). Moreover, the search was not an incident to a lawful arrest of a person under Sec. 12 of Rule 126.
b) No. A warrantless arrest requires that the crime has in fact just been committed and the police arresting has personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has committed it. (Sec. 5, Rule 113). Here, the crime has not just been committed since a period of two days had already lapsed, and the police arresting has no such personal knowledge because he was not present when the incident happened. (Go vs. Court of Appeals. 206 SCRA 138).
c) Yes. The gun is not indispensable in the conviction of A because the court may rely on testimonial or other evidence.

Bar Exam Question (2000)

Arrest; Warrantless Arrests; Objection (2000)

FG was arrested without a warrant by policemen while he was walking in a busy street. After preliminary investigation, he was charged with rape and the corresponding information was filed in the RTC. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. The court rendered judgment convicting him. On appeal, FG claims that the judgment is void because he was illegally arrested. If you were the Solicitor General, counsel for the People of the Philippines, how would you refute said claim? 

Suggested Answer:

Any objection to the illegality of the arrest of the accused without a warrant is deemed waived when he pleaded not guilty at the arraignment without raising the question. T is too late to complain about a warrantless arrest after trial is commenced and completed and a judgment of conviction rendered against the accused. (People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199, [1999])