Rule 113

RULE 113 - ARREST
Section 1. Definition of arrest. – Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
WHAT IS ARREST?
> Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of the offense
IS THERE HOUSE ARREST IN OUR JURISDICTION?
> Yes. Under Article 88 of the RPC, when there are offenses punishable with arresto mayor, one
can be given house arrest under certain conditions.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE REGARDING ERAP? WHY DID HE APPLY AND WAS GRANTED HOUSE ARREST?
> Erap first filed a petition for bail but was denied
> Plunder is a non-bailable offense
> The bail being denied, the natural consequence is detention
> He applied for house arrest given the circumstances of his person and medical reasons
Sec. 2. Arrest; how made. – An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his
submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be
subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention.
HOW ARREST IS MADE?

> An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest
WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN JURISPRUDENCE SAYS THAT THE OFFICER IN MAKING THE ARREST,
MUST “STAND HIS GROUND”?
> It means that the officer may use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect the arrest
1. People vs. Aminnudin [GR L-74860, 6 July 1988]
Facts: Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly after disembarking from
the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for
him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took
him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles were
confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they were
verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed
against him. Later, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also
been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and
pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on
the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a "thorough
investigation." The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was
eventually convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.
Issue: Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest against Aminnudin,
for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs.
Held: It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the
prosecution, that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he
was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and
regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo by boat with
marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one saying it was two
days before the arrest (this was the declaration of the chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano
Querol, Jr.), another two weeks and a third "weeks before June 25." There was no warrant of
arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence
of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, Aminnudin was not caught in
flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the
warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be
invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant. The present case presented no urgency.
From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days
within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was
coming Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date
of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have
persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant.
Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored
altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had determined
on his own authority that "search warrant was not necessary."

Rule 113

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 113

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 113

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 113 - ARREST

IS THERE HOUSE ARREST IN OUR JURISDICTION?

> Plunder is a non-bailable offense

> The bail being denied, the natural consequence is detention

HOW ARREST IS MADE?

1. People vs. Aminnudin [GR L-74860, 6 July 1988]

You might also like