Carnacete, Danielle Angela O.

Tan, Heidelyn T.

September 23, 2017

The Basis of Issuance of Warrant of Arrest

A Warrant of Arrest is grounded on Article III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution, which
states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.”

Article III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution provides for the scope of protection for all
persons, whether accused of a crime or not, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and arrests.
Ordinary citizens enjoy the right against intrusions, and are the masters of all the surveys to be
conducted within the domain and privacy of their own home. Thus, only valid warrants of arrests
are granted by the courts in the exercise of the legal duties of the members of law enforcement
agencies. However, as a natural occurrence in the realm of law; exceptions are also offered in this
particular aspect.

Requisites of a Valid Warrant

Before deliberating on exceptions under the general rule; the application of the general rule
must first be presented in order to point out the deviations made by such exceptions.

The constitutional requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest are the
following; a) It must be based upon probable cause; b) the probable cause must be determined
personally by the judge; c) the determination must be made after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and, d) it must particularly
describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Exceptions – Valid Warrantless Arrests

It is provided in the Rules of Court that a peace officer or even a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person1 under the following circumstances:

1. In flagrante delicto (caught in the act)

In arrests in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is
committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of
the arresting officer. In order to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two conditions
must concur; a) 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, b) such
overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 2 It would also
be deemed as “committed in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer” if the
overt act were to be seen by, although from a distance 3 or even if he merely hears the
disturbance 4 created thereby, provided he proceeds immediately to the scene.

2. Hot Pursuit
Under this condition, an offense has, in fact, just been committed and the arresting officer
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
5

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgement or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

1
Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
2
Ibid.
3
People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388, March 18, 1991
4
US v. Fortaleza, 12 Phil. 472 (1909)
5
Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
 4. In addition, an arrest may also be made without a warrant where the right thereto is waived
by the person arrested, provided he knew of such right and knowingly decided not to invoke
it. 6

However, no waiver is to be presumed when the person merely submits to the arresting
officer as a sign of respect for the officer’s authority.

Furthermore, when an arrest is effected by virtue of a valid warrant or falls within any of
the exceptions abovementioned, a search may be made as an incident to such valid arrest. The
rationale behind such search is to frisk the arrested individual for concealed weapons that may
be used against the arresting officer. 7

In cases of Buy-bust operations, particularly those involving the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, it has been consistently considered as lawful warrantless arrests, or arrests in flagrante
delicto. 8

Cases of a Valid Warrantless Arrest

There are various cases on Valid Warrantless Arrests found in local jurisprudence. An
example of such is shown in the case of Pestilos, et al. vs People (G.R. no. 182601, November 10,
2014), wherein petitioner Joey Pestilos was indicted for attempted murder due to an altercation
that ensued between the petitioner and Atty. Generoso, wherein the latter called the Central Police
District, Station 6 (Batasan Hills Police Station). Acting on this report, SPO1 Monsalve dispatched
SP02 Dominador Javier (SP02 Javier) to go to the scene of the crime and to render assistance.
SP02 Javier, together with augmentation personnel from the Airforce, A2C Alano Sayson and
Airman Ruel Galvez, arrived at the scene of the crime less than one hour after the alleged
altercation and they saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten.

Atty. Generoso then pointed the petitioners as those who mauled him which prompted the
police officers to “invite” the petitioners to go to the police station for investigation. At the inquest
proceeding, the City Prosecutor found that the petitioners stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed

6
People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144 (1993)
7
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, (1968)
8
People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009
weapon who fortunately survived the attack. Petitioners then assailed the arrest, alleging it was
done without a valid warrant of arrest, and also the arrest was affected by the policemen despite
the fact that they did not witness the crime and arrived only less than an hour after the alleged
altercation.

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the petitioners were validly arrested without a
warrant. The validity of the arrest is derived from Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that: 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. These are dependent on the particular circumstances of the case, which
are attended by the facts, events or conditions.

The court stated that “Circumstances may pertain to events or actions within the actual
perception, personal evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus,
even though the police officer has not seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a
warrantless arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime,
he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has
committed the crime. However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or
circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime. In other words, the
clincher in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element
of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered. This required time
element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or perceived
the circumstances within a very limited time frame.”9

In sum, pursuant to Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for
affecting a valid warrantless arrest, the following must be complied with: 1) has the crime just
been committed when they were arrested? 2) did the arresting officer have personal knowledge of
facts and circumstances that the petitioners committed the crime? and 3) based on these facts and
circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the petitioners' arrest, would a

9
Pestilos, et al. vs People (G.R. no. 182601, November 10, 2014)
reasonably discreet and prudent person believe that the attempted murder of Atty. Generoso was
committed by the petitioners? The Court ruled in the affirmative in this case.

Similarly, an arrest was also ruled to be valid without a warrant of arrest in the case of
People vs Alunday (G.R. no. 181546, September 3, 2008), the Intelligence Section of the Police
Provincial Office of the Mountain Province received a report from a confidential informant that
there was an existing marijuana plantation within the vicinity of Mt. Churyon. The accused
Ricardo Alunday was arrested without a warrant because he was seen cutting and gathering
marijuana plants in a suspected marijuana plantation during a raiding operation. Furthermore, an
unlicensed firearm was found in a nearby hut when the accused was taken thereto.

The court ruled that the arrest was valid by virtue of in flagrante delicto under Section 5(a)
of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which states that a peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense. Additionally, he only raised the issue of the
validity of the warrantless arrest during his appeal, instead of raising it at the first instance, hence
he was considered to have waived his right to object the same.

In essence, not at all instances is a warrantless arrest necessary to affect an arrest. There
are exceptions to the rule as decided in local jurisprudence.

Unlawful Warrantless Arrests

Warrantless arrests made solely on the basis of ‘tips’ or ‘reliable information’ have been
consistently regarded as unlawful, in view of the fact that it does not fulfill the conditions
prescribed in the aforementioned exceptions. 10 The Supreme Court likewise ruled that warrantless
arrests based on a ‘civilian asset’s report’ or mere ‘information’ are also unlawful and invalid. 11

10
Peopls v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010
11
People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 753, (2003)