Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
'INITIAL VIOLATION'
[In criminal procedure, the term "initial violation" is not used as a legal
basis to justfiy a warantless search. What can be seen in the rules is "search
incidental to a lawful arrest" which means that a person has done a crime
which is the reason why he is legally under search despite lack of warrant.]
Ano ba ang pagkakaiba ng dalawa? Kung tutuusin, parehas lang dahil ang
tao ay may ginawang paglabag ng batas. Subalit:
[3] Pagdating sa korte, mas angkop at mas kilala ang search incidental to a
lawful arrest kaysa sa initial violation kaya kung ito ang gagamitin ay mas
malakas at klarado ang legal na posisyon ng pulis.
[What is the difference between the two? If you look closely, both are
violations of law. HOWEVER:
[1] The term "initial violation" is a vague term with origins unknown. It may
be a term used only within the police force. On the other hand, search
incidental to lawful arrest is the exact term used by the law and rules;
[3] In court, it is better (and more popular) to used the term "search
incidental to lawful arrest" instead of "initial violation." When used, the
first term has a clearer and forceful legal effect to justify the position of the
arresting/searching police officer.]
There are three (3) grounds that will justify a warrantless arrest. Rule 113,
Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
(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.
Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an inflagrante delicto
arrest constitutionally infirm. In Cogaed, the warrantless arrest was
invalidated as an in flagrante delicto arrest because the accused did not
exhibit an overt act within the view of the police officers suggesting that he
was in possession of illegal drugs at the time he was apprehended.
In holding that the warrantless search was invalid, this Court observed that
Racho was not "committing a crime in the presence of the police officers" at
the time he was apprehended. Moreover, Racho's arrest was solely based on
a tip. Although there are cases stating that reliable information is sufficient
to justify a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, they
were covered under the other exceptions to the rule on warrantless searches.
(G.R. No. 200370)