RULE 113: ARREST

DEFINITION OF 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. (1)

‣ A person is arrested for a specific and definite purpose — to make him answer for the commission of an offense
HOW AN ARREST SHOULD BE MADE

Section 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. (2a)

‣ An arrest is made by either (What constitutes arrest)—

1. ACTUAL RESTRAINT OF THE PERSON SOUGHT TO BE ARRESTED
‣ Arrest necessarily implied control over the person under custody and as a consequence, a retrain on his liberty to
the extent that he is not free to leave on his own volition
‣ An underlying rule whenever an arrest is made is that no violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
RULE 113: ARREST

arrest. The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater retrain than is necessary for his detention
2. PERSON’S SUBMISSION TO THE CUSTODY OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ARREST
‣ To make an arrest, a person need NOT be actually restrained by the person making the arrest, because it can also
be effected by the submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
‣ It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there be an
intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.
‣ Thus, when a motorist is flagged down for a traffic violation, he is not deemed to be “under arrest” at the ti,me
that
he was waiting for the traffic officer to write a citation ticket. The period prior to the issuance of the ticket may be
characterised merely as “waiting time” where there is no intent to take the motorist into custody. (Luz vs People;
Pestillos vs Generous 2014)

ARREST BY EXECUTION OF A WARRANT OF ARREST

Section 4. Execution of warrant. — The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for execution
shall
cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten (10) days after the expiration of
the
period, the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the warrant.
In case
of his failure to execute the warrant, he shall state the reasons therefor. (4a)
RULE 113: ARREST

Section 3. Duty of arresting officer. — It shall be the duty of the officer executing the warrant to arrest the accused
and to
deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay. (3a)
Section 6. Time of making arrest. — An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. (6)
Section 7. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant. — When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the
officer
shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for
his
arrest, except when he flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when the
giving of such information will imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the
time of the arrest
but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable. (7a)
Section 10. Officer may summon assistance. — An officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many
persons as
he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. Every person so summoned by an officer shall assist him in
effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself. (10a)
Section 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. — An officer, in order to make an arrest either by
virtue of
a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where the
person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and
purpose. (11a)
RULE 113: ARREST

Section 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure. — Whenever an officer has entered the building or
enclosure in
accordance with the preceding section, he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate himself. (12a)

PROCEDURE IN THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT OF ARREST

1. The warrant is issued by the judge
‣ Remember that a warrant of arrest is issued upon the filing of the information in court and after the judicial
determination of probable cause by the judge.
‣ Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as “such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudence man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested. (Ocampo vs Abando 2014) It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing
evidence of guilty. The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilty
of
the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient
ground to issue a warrant for his arrest. (People vs Tan)
2. The warrant is delivered to the proper law enforcement agency for execution
3. The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest is delivered shall cause the warrant to be executed within 10
days from receipt.
4. The warrant is executed and the accused is arrested
‣ An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. (Rule 113, Sec. 6)
‣ The officer shall inform the person to be arrested (Rule 113, Sec. 7) —
a. Cause of the arrest
RULE 113: ARREST

b. The fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest
‣ EXCEPT — this is not required when —
i. When the accused flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or
ii. When the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
‣ Should the officer have the warrant with him when he effects the arrest?
‣ NO. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest but after the arrest, if the
person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable. (Rule 113, Sec. 7)
‣ What if the officer, cannot on his own, effectively make the arrest?
‣ He may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. Every person
so summoned by an officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without
detriment to himself. (Rule 113, Sec. 10)
‣ What if the person to be arrested is hiding inside a building or enclosure, and he is refused admittance thereto,
after announcing his authority and purpose?
‣ The officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5,
may break into the building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be. After
entering the building or enclosure he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate himself. (Rule 113, Sec.
11, 12)
5. Upon arrest, the resting officer should delivery the accused to the nearest police station or jail without
unnecessary delay. (Rule 113, Sec. 3)
RULE 113: ARREST
6. Within 10 days after the expiration of the period, the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make a
report to the judge who issued the warrant.
RULE 113: ARREST

‣ In case of his failure to execute it, he should state the reasons for its non-execution.
EFFECTIVE LIFE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST
‣ It is effective until —
1. Served, or
2. Set aside by the Court
‣ NOTE — The 10 days provided in section 4 is only the 10 days for the public or police officers to comply with the
service
of he warrant of arrest, it is NOT made ineffective after the 10 day period.
‣ Distinguish this from a search warrant which is only effective for 10 days after issue
WARRANTLESS ARREST

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.
RULE 113: ARREST

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to
the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112
Section 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. — If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines. (13)
Section 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. — When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer
shall
inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in
the
commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees or forcibly resists before
the
officer has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (8a)
Section 9. Method of arrest by private person. — When making an arrest, a private person shall inform the person
to be
arrested of the intention to arrest him and cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the commission
of an
offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the person
making
the arrest has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (9a)
RULE 114 — BAIL
Section 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. — For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest
him
RULE 113: ARREST

or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police
officer or
any other person of suitable age and discretion.
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the
Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending. (23a)

INSTANCES WHEN A PERSON MAY VALIDLY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST

‣ RULE — Generally, arrests and seizure of persons must be effected with a valid warrant of arrest issued by the
courts
‣ EXCEPT — In the following cases, a warrantless arrest may be validly performed —
1. Arrest In Flagrante Delicto
2. Arrest in Hot Pursuit
3. Arrest of Escaped Prisoner
4. Arrest of Person out on Bail
INSTANCES WHEN A PERSON MAY VALIDLY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST (EXPOUNDED)
1. ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
‣ When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an
offense
‣ REQUISITES —
a. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing,
RULE 113: ARREST

or is attempting to commit a crime

b. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view (perception of the senses) of the arresting officer.
‣ In this case, the person making the arrest himself witnesses the crime. He himself must have personally
knowledge of
the crime itself.
‣ Such as — if police officer personally witnesses a robbery, or if a buy-bust operation involving illegal drugs is
conducted.
‣ BUT — As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, “reliable information” from a confidential informant alone, absent
any
overt act indicative of a crime in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers is NOT sufificnet to
constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. (People vs Molina)
‣ NOTE — In the case of continuing crimes (such as rebellion or subversion or being a member of the NPA), an overt
act
is NOT necessary to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest. (Umil vs Ramos; Garcia-Padilla vs Enrile)
‣ This is the case even if the accused was not doing any crime when he was arrested without a warrant, such as
when he was confined in the hospital. Since he is committing a continuing crime, he can be arrested at any time,
even without a warrant.
2. ARREST IN HOT PURSUIT
‣ 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
‣ REQUISITES —
a. Offense has in fact just been committed
RULE 113: ARREST

‣ The emphasis is on the immediacy of the arrest reckoned from the commission of the crime.
‣ NOTE — The time gap is judged from a case-to-case basis. In some instances, the court has held that a hot
pursuit arrest made a day after the commission of a crime as invalid, since the requirement of “immediacy” is
absent. (See People vs Del Rosario)
b. That the arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested is the one who committed the offense.
‣ Under Hot Pursuit Arrest, the offense was NOT done in the presence of the arresting officer but based on facts
and circumstances, there is reasonable grounds to believe based on probable cause on personal knowledge
that the person sought to be arrest has committed the crime.
‣ This exception does not require that the arresting officer should personally witness the commission of the
crime (otherwise that would fall under in flagrante delicto arrest).
‣ Personal knowledge referred to under the hot pursuit exception does not refer to actual knowledge of the crime
because the officer did not witness its commission. The knowledge referred to is knowledge that a crime was
committed even if it was not committed in his presence.
‣ Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which earns an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion. The grounds are reasonable when the suspicion that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty of committing the offense based on actual facts (such as supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilty of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion, therefore, is sufficient, if it is founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the
part of the arresting officers. (Abelita vs Doria)
‣ The person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the fact that a crime was committed and the person
arrested was guilty thereof because at the time of the arrest, he has reasonably worthy information in his
RULE 113: ARREST

possession coupled with his own observation and fair inferences therefore that the person arrested has probably
committed the offense. The arresting officer may even rely on information supplied by a witness or
a victim of the crime. The facts or circumstances, that would lead an officer to acquire personal knowledge that
a crime was in fact committed, pertain to actual facts or raw evidence which are sufficiently strong in
themselves got create there required probable cause. The arresting officer operates on the basis of more
limited facts, evidence or available information that he must personally gather within a limited time frame.
(Pestilos vs Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014; See this case for a very comprehensive
discussion)
‣ NOTE — It seems that the court is not strict with interpreting the requisite of “personal knowledge of facts” by
the arresting officer in the context of a hot pursuit arrest as long as the arrest was made immediately after the
commission of the crime.
3. ARREST OF ESCAPED PRISONER
‣ 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.
‣ This includes both a convicted prisoner or a detention prisoner
‣ NOTE — If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately pursue or retake him
without a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines
4. ARREST OF PERSON OUT ON BAIL
‣ An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from
the
Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending. (Rule 114, Sec. 23)
RULE 113: ARREST

WHO MAY MAKE THE WARRANTLESS ARREST; EXECUTION OF A WARRANTLESS ARREST

‣ Who can make warrantless arrests?
1. Peace officer
2. Private person (citizen’s arrest)
‣ How is the warrantless arrest effected?
1. The officer shall inform the person to be arrested of —
a. His authority to arrest
‣ BUT — in the case of a private person is the who arresting, he informs his “intention to arrest”
b. Cause of the arrest
‣ EXCEPT —There is no need to inform in the following cases —
a. Accused is engaged in the commission of an offense
b. Accused is pursued immediately after its commission
c. When the accused flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or
d. When the giving of such information will imperil the arrest

JURISPRUDENCE ON ARRESTS IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

‣ People vs De Leon (2010)
‣ Appellant was caught in actual possession of the prohibited drugs without showing any proof that he was duly
authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facie evidence of animus
possidendi on appellant’s part.
‣ It is elementary that in every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug as
RULE 113: ARREST

evidence in court is material; the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same
substance
offered in court should be established
‣ People vs Laguio (2007) — It is settled that “reliable information” alone, absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious
enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that
would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest
‣ People vs Valdez (2007)
‣ For the exception in Section 5(a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court has ruled that two (2) elements must be present:
(1)
the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing,
or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.

RULE 113: ARREST

‣ Here, petitioner’s act of looking around after getting off the bus was but natural as he was finding his way to his
destination. That he purportedly attempted to run away as the tanod approached him is irrelevant and cannot by
itself
be construed as adequate to charge the tanod with personal knowledge that petitioner had just engaged in, was
RULE 113: ARREST

actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. More importantly, petitioner testified that he
did
not run away but in fact spoke with the barangay tanod when they approached him.
JURISPRUDENCE ON ARRESTS IN HOT PURSUIT
‣ Go vs CA (1992)
‣ In this case, the accused Rolito Go’s “arrest” took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The “arresting”
officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot
Maguan. Neither could the “arrest” effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected
“when
[the shooting had] in fact just been committed” within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the
“arresting”
officers had any “personal knowledge” of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan.
The
information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the
shooting—one stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman’s car’s
plate
number which turned out to be registered in petitioner’s wife’s name. That information did not, however,
constitute
“personal knowledge.” It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within
the
meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113
RULE 113: ARREST

‣ Since petitioner had not been arrested with or without a warrant, he was also entitled to be released forthwith
subject
only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation

EFFECT OF ILLEGAL OR INVALID WARRANTLESS ARREST

‣ Does the illegality of the arrest of the accused affect the jurisdiction of the court?
‣ YES. If there is no valid arrest, then the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused
‣ How does the accused challenge the illegality of his arrest?
‣ He can file a motion to quash the information based on the ground that the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction
over the person of the accused. (See Rule 117, Sec. 3[c])
‣ What if the accused fails to challenge the illegality of his arrest before he enters his plea, is it deemed waived?
‣ YES. Any objection involving an arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of
the
accused myst be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. (People vs Cunanan
2015)
‣ The accused cannot raise the illegality of his arrest for the first time on appeal. (People vs Palma)
‣ Is the waiver of an illegal arrest also a waiver of the admissibility of evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless
search and seizure incidental to the arrest?
‣ NO. When a person fails to make a timely objection to an illegal arrest, only the right to assail the arrest is waived.
He
RULE 113: ARREST

does not waive the right to question the admissibility of the evidence seized by virtue of the illegal arrest. A waiver
of
the illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a water of the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during an illegal
warrantless arrest. (De la Cruz vs People 2014; Villanueva vs People 2014)
‣ Does the illegality of the arrest of the accused lead to his acquittal, can it set aside a judgment of conviction?
‣ NO. The illegality of the arrest, cannot, in itself, be the basis for acquittal. Even assuming that the accused made a
timely objection of the illegality of his warrantless arrest, such fact will not deprive of the State of its right to
prosecute
the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability. Conviction is proper despite the fact that the
accused was illegally arrested without a warrant. (People vs Yau 2014) Even if the warrantless arrest of an accused
is
later proven to be invalid, such fact is not a sufficient cause to set aside a valid judgment of conviction. (People vs
Velasco 2013)
‣ If the accused was illegally arrested without a warrant, and he later applies for bail, does such application bar him
from challenging the legality of his arrested?
‣ NO. An application for or admission to bail does NOT bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
the
legality of the warrant issued, provided he raises the objection before he enters his plea (through a motion to
quash).
The objection shall be resolved by the court as early as practicable, but not later than the start of the trial of the
case.
(Rule 114, Sec. 26)
RULE 113: ARREST

RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARRESTED OR DETAINED

SEC. 14. Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested.— Any member of the Philippine Bar shall, at the
request
of the person arrested or of another acting in his behalf, have the right to visit and confer privately with such
person in the
jail or any other place of custody at any hour of the day or night. Subject to reasonable regulations, a relative of the
person arrested can also exercise the same right
RA 7438 — AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS,
AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or
investigates any
person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of
his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at
all
times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such
person
RULE 113: ARREST

cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by
the
investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before
such
report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall
be
read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating
officer
in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be
null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in
writing
and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the
presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge,
district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or
under
custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the
waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
RULE 113: ARREST

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with
any
member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any
member
of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by
the
Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Office of
the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child,
brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of
the
"inviting" officer for any violation of law.