`73 Rayray vs People

FACTS: After offering to sell shabu to a stranger, who turned out to be a Lt. Ancheta, a Chief
Administrative Officer Regional Integrated National Police, Rayray was arrested and brought to a police
Station. Raray contends that his arrest was unlawful since Lt. Ancheta had no authority to arrest him since
he was arrested without a warrant.
ISSUE: Is the arrest valid considering there is no warrant and considering further the arrest is allegedly in
flagrante delicto.
RULING:
Yes, the arrest is valid
Rule 113 of ROC, Sec. 5(a), an arrest without warrant is lawful when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, in the presence of a peace
officer or private person.
In this case, Rayray was committing a crime when was trying to sell shabu to Lt. Ancheta.
Consequently, Lt. Ancheta validly arrested Rayray without need of a warrant since the latter was caught in
flagrante delicto.
73 People v Padilla
FACTS: Manarang, a balut vendor, reported to the police that he witnessed Padillas car got involved in a
hit and run incident. When the police finally caught and arrested Padilla, they saw the latter illegally in
possession of firearms. Padilla questions the validity of his arrest on appeal.
ISSUE: Is the arrest valid considering there is no warrant and considering further the arrest is allegedly
made in hot pursuit as well as in flagrante delicto.
RULING:
Yes, the arrest is valid
Rule 113 of ROC, Sec. 5(a), an arrest without warrant is lawful when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, in the presence of a peace
officer or private person.
In this case, the police officers arrested Padilla after Manarang positively identified Padillas car as
the vehicle involved in the hit and run accident. Moreover, Padilla was caught in flagrante delicto with
possession of an unlicensed firearms, this time in the presence of a peace officer. Additionally, his failure to
object to his arrest before he entered his plea constituted a waiver to any irregularities in this arrest.
73 People v Peralta
FACTS: In the morning of November 4, 1992, an information of qualified theft was filed against Garcia and
his co-accused as they allegedly stole punctured currency bills. Later that afternoon, police officers
arrested Garcia without a warrant while the latter had been waiting for a passenger bus after being pointed
out by an employee of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Garcia questioned the validity of his arrest due to the
absence of a warrant. However, Appellee contended that the arrest was made in flagrante delicto.
ISSUE: Is the arrest valid CT there is no warrant and CTF the accused is allegedly in flagrante delicto.
HELD:
No, the arrest is invalid.
Rule 113 of ROC, Sec. 5(a), an arrest without warrant is lawful when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
In this case, the police arrested Garcia without a warrant after the latter was merely waiting for a
passenger bus. Thus, when Garcia was arrested, he had not committed, was not committing, and was not
about to commit any crime. Neither was he acting in a manner that would engender a reasonable ground
to suspect that he was committing a crime. Therefore, the arrest was invalid.