WARRANTLESS ARREST! WHEN CAN THIS BE INVOKED!

IS COL. MACLANG CORRECT IN ARRESTING MR TANGKIS WITHOUT A WARRANT?

 

 

 

(Speech of Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO at the Philippine National Police Headquarters, Camp Crame, on March 13, 2006.)

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5, a warrantless arrest, also known as "citizen’s arrest," is lawful under three circumstances:

1. When, in the presence of the policeman, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is the "in flagrante delicto" rule.

2. 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. This is the "hot pursuit" arrest rule.

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

In flagrante delicto warrantless arrest should comply with the element of immediacy between the time of the offense and the time of the arrest. For example, in one case the Supreme Court held that when the warrantless arrest was made three months after the crime was committed, the arrest was unconstitutional and illegal.

If an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the warrantless arrest is lawful and the evidence obtained in a search incidental to the arrest is admissible as evidence. One common example of a warrantless arrest is a buybust operation.

An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance; or hears the disturbance that it creates and proceeds at once to the scene.

If the warrantless arrest turns out to be unlawful, still the court is capable of assuming jurisdiction over the accused. Any objection to the court’s jurisdiction is waived, when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any objection.

The test of in flagrante delicto arrest is that the suspect was acting under circumstances reasonably tending to show that he has committed or is about to commit a crime. Evidence of guilt is not necessary. It is enough if there is probable cause. For example, if there was a prior arrangement to deliver shabu inside a hotel, the immediate warrantless arrest of the accused upon his entry in the hotel room is valid. By contrast, the discovery of marked money on the accused does not justify a warrantless arrest.

Under the rule on "hot pursuit" arrest, the policeman should have personal knowledge that the suspect committed the crime. The test is probable cause, which the Supreme Court has defined as "an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion."

Under this rule, the policeman does not need to actually witness the execution or acts constituting the offense. But he must have direct knowledge, or view of the crime, right after its commission.

* Mentally disabled persons on emergency grounds.

* Arrest based on unreasonable suspicion.