RULE 113 ARREST

A. Definition
- how made; when; time, method
- who may arrest
B. Warrantless Arrests (Sec. 5)
a. in flagrante delicto rule
b. hot pursuit rule
c. escape rule
d. absconding rule (sec. 23, par. 2, rule 114)
Procedure: delivery to the nearest police station/precinct
Read: Luz vs. People, 667 SCRA 421
Antiquera vs. People, 712 SCRA, 12/11,2013
People vs. Vasquez, 714 SCRA, 1/15/2014
Read: RA7438 The Rights of Persons Arrested

In flagrante delicto
Pulido
SARAUM V. PEOPLE
781 SCRA, G.R. No., 205472, January 25, 2016
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Arrest in Flagrante Delicto; In arrest 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.Saraum was arrested during the commission of a crime,
which instance does not require a warrant in accordance with Section 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is
apprehended at the very moment he is committing or attempting to commit or has committed an offense
in the presence of the arresting officer. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must
concur: (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.

Same; Same; Same; Searches and Seizures; Considering that Sarums arrest was legal, the
search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful. The various drug paraphernalia that the
police officers found and seized in the shanty are, therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded
from a valid search and seizure.The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the
shanty for objects relating to the crime seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of their
lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia. As these items were plainly
visible, the police officers were justified in seizing them. Considering that Saraums arrest was legal, the
search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful. The various drug paraphernalia that the
police officers found and seized in the shanty are, therefore, admissible in evidence for having proceeded
from a valid search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of
the crime charge, the Court has no choice but to sustain the judgment of conviction.

70
 Same; Same; Motion to Quash; The established rule is that an accused may be stopper from
assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against him
before his arraignment. Even if we consider the arrest as invalid, Saraum is deemed to have waived any
objection thereto when he did not raise the issue before entering his plea. The established rule is that an
accused may be stopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of
the Information against him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in
the courts acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his
plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived. In this case, counsel for Saraum manifested its
objection to the admission of the seized drug paraphernalia, involving illegal arrest and search, only
during the formal offer of evidence by the prosecution.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; The testimonies of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation are generally accorded full faith and credit in view of the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties and especially so in the absence of ill motive that could be
attributed to them. The defense failed to show any odious intent on the part of the police officers to
impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person.
Saraums mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification and declaration s of
the police officers. The defense of denial, frame-up, or extortion, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by
the courts with disfavour for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
most cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As evidence that is both negative and self-
serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witness who testify
clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed. To merit
consideration, it has to be sustained by strong, clear, and convincing evidence, which Saraum failed to do
for presenting no corroborative evidence.

Same; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Settled is the rule that unless some facts or circumstances
of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance which has been misinterpreted, the
findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and
will not be disturbed because it has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their
deportment and manner of testifying The rule finds an even more stringent application where said
findings are sustained by the CA as in this case. In this case, the quantum of evidence necessary to prove
Saraums guilt beyond reasonable doubt had been sufficiently met since the prosecution stood on its own
strength and did not rely on the weakness of the defense. The prosecution was able to overcome the
constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

FACTS
On August 17, 2006, PO3 Larrobis received a telephone call regarding the illegal drug activities in Sitio
Calamansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu City wherein a certain Pata was said to be involved. With the
necessary documents such as the pre-operation report and its submission to PDEA, the buy-bust team
proceeded to the subject area. During their operation, Pata tried to escape as he run towards his house
where the team saw Saraum and Esperanza who were both holding drug paraphernalia apparently in
preparation to have shabu pot session. These paraphernalia include lighter, rolled tissue paper, and
aluminium tin foil. The items were confiscated and were placed in the plastic pack of the misua wrapped
and were marked by PO3 Larrobis. Subsequently, the items were turned over to the property custodian of
City of Prosecutor after the case was filed.

71
On the other hand, the commission of the alleged defense was denied by Saraum wherein he alleged that
he was passing by Lorega Cemetery on his way to the house of his parents in law when he was held by
men with firearms. In addition, he alleged that he resisted such arrest because he did not commit
anything illegal and he learned of the criminal charge only when he was brought to the Court. The RTC
found Saraum to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 12, Article II of R.A.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and was hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and to pay a fine of Php 20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency. The judgement of RTC was sustained by the CA. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not Saraums arrest was valid.
HELD
The Court held in the affirmative.
Saraums arrest was made during the commission of a crime which does not require a warrant in
accordance with Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In arrest 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. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto
arrest, two requisites must concur: (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. In this case, the arresting officers saw
Saraum was holding a lighter, tin foil, and rolled tissue paper while they were in the course of arresting
somebody. This clearly showed the case of hot pursuit of Pata, who entered the house where Saraum
was caught in possession of the illegal items.
Further, the valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the shanty for objects relating to
the crime and seize the drug paraphernalia they found. Thus, the police officers were justified in seizing
them. Since, the arrest was legal, then the search and seizure which resulted from such arrest were also
lawful. Furthermore, the court said that even if it considered the arrest as invalid, Saraum is deemed to
have waived any objection when he did not raise the issue before entering his plea. The established rule
is that an accused may be stopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the
quashing of the information against him before his arraignment.
In this case, the quantum of evidence necessary to prove Saraums guilt beyond reasonable doubt had
been sufficiently met since the prosecution stood on its own strength and did not rely on the weakness of
the defense.
Wherefore, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The decision elated September 8, 2011 and
Resolution dated December 19, 2012 of the Court of appeals in CA-GR. CEB CR No. 01199, which
sustained the judgement of conviction rendered by the RTC, Branch 57, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No.
CBU-77737, is AFFIRMED.

Warrantless Arrest/Search and Seizures

Quillope
G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015
ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y GONZALES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Searches and Seizures; Search Warrants; Section 2,
Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the
strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in the absence of such

72
warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable" within the meaning of said
constitutional provision.-

Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in the
absence of such warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures,
Section 3 (2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which instructs that evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed
tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words, evidence
obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding.

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Warrantless Arrests. For a warrantless arrest
under Section 5 (a) to operate, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (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.

For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to operate, two (2) elements must concur, namely:
(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. On the other hand, Section 5 (b) requires for its application that at the
time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. In both instances, the officer's personal
knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under Section 5 (a), the
officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Section (b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just been
committed.

Same; Same; Searches and Seizures; Stop and Frisk Searches (Terry Searches); Normally, "stop
and frisk" searches do not give the law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to determine
probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, one of the earliest cases adopting the "stop and frisk"
doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, this court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable
cause.

The Court finds respondent's assertion that there was a valid "stop and frisk" search made on
Comerciante untenable. In People v. Cogaed, 34 the Court had an opportunity to exhaustively explain
"stop and frisk" searches: "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are
necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the
commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens
in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The balance lies in the concept of
"suspiciousness" present where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly
based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience
dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern - based on
facts that they themselves observe - whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a
basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts
leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. x x x x Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the law
enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of
Appeals, one of the earliest cases adopting the "stop and frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence, this

73
court approximated the suspicious circumstances as probable cause: The probable cause is that when
the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that
he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to
inspect the same. For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.

FACTS
Agent Radan of the NARCOTICS group and PO3 Calag were aboard a motorcycle, patrolling the area at
Mandaluyong City. While they spotted, at a distance of about 10 meters, two men - later identified as
Comerciante and Dasilla standing and showing "improper and unpleasant movements," with one of them
handing plastic sachets to the other. Thinking that the sachets may contain shabu, they immediately
stopped and approached Comerciante and Dasilla. PO3 Calag introduced himself as a police officer,
arrested Comerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated two plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance from them. A laboratory examination later confirmed that said sachets contained
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a demurrer to evidence, which was granted by the RTC,
thus his acquittal. However, due to Comerciante's failure to file his own demurrer to evidence, the RTC
considered his right to do so waived and ordered him to present his evidence. The RTC found that PO3
Calag conducted a valid warrantless arrest on Comerciante, which yielded two plastic sachets containing
shabu. The CA affirmed Comerciante's conviction. It held that PO3 Calag had probable cause to effect the
warrantless arrest of Comerciante, given that the latter was committing a crime in flagrante delicto;
ISSUE
Whether the CA correctly affirmed Comerciante's conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA
9165.
RULING
No. The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the recognized
exceptions established by jurisprudence is a search incident to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law
requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made the process cannot be
reversed.25 Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the rules on
lawful warrantless arrests, as follows:
SEC. 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.
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.

74
The aforementioned provision provides three (3) instances when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully
effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a suspect where, based on personal
knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a
crime which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final
judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to operate, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (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.27 On the other hand, Section 5 (b) requires for its application that at the
time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it.28redarclaw
The Court also notes that no other overt act could be properly attributed to Comerciante as to rouse
suspicion in the mind of PO3 Calag that the former had just committed, was committing, or was about to
commit a crime. Verily, the acts of standing around with a companion and handing over something to the
latter cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if Comerciante and his companion were
showing "improper and unpleasant movements" as put by PO3 Calag, the same would not have been
sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure. That his reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the fact that he had seen his fellow
officers arrest persons in possession of shabu; and (b) his trainings and seminars on illegal drugs when
he was still assigned in the province are insufficient to create a conclusion that what he purportedly saw in
Comerciante was indeed shabu. In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid "stop and
frisk" search made on Comerciante. As such, the shabu purportedly seized from him is rendered
inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Since the confiscated shabu
is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, Comerciante must necessarily be acquitted and
exonerated from all criminal liability.

Checkpoints
Ramirez

RODEL LUZ y ONG , petitioner, vs

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
GR No. 197788, February 29, 2012

Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Land Transportation and Traffic Code (RA No. 4136, or the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest
of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter. - Arrest is the taking of a person
into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. It is
effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that persons voluntary submission to the
custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the
body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. 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 other to
submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary. Under RA 4136, or the land
Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest
of the offender, but he confiscation of the drivers license of the latter: SECTION 29. Confiscation of
Drivers License.- Law enforcement and peace officers of other agencies duly deputized by the Director
shall, in apprehending a driver for any violation of this Act or any regulations issued pursuant thereto, or

75
of local traffic rules and regulations not contrary to any provisions of this Act, confiscate the license of the
driver concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued by the Bureau therefor which shall authorize
the driver to operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours from time and date of
issue of said receipt.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Procedure Being Observed in Flagging Down Vehicles during the
Conduct of Checkpoints. - The Philippine National Police (PNP) Operations Manual provides the
following procedure for flagging down vehicles during the Conduct of Checkpoints: SECTION 7.
Procedure in Flagging Down or Accosting Vehicles While in Mobile Car. This rule is a general concept
and will not apply in hot pursuit operations. The mobile car crew shall undertake the following, when
applicable: x x x m. If it concerns traffic violations, immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket (TCT) or
Traffic Violation Report (TVR). Never indulge in prolonged, unnecessary conversation or argument with
the driver or any of the vehicles occupants.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Custodial Interrogation; The roadside questioning of a motorist does
not fall under the custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest. - In Berkemer v.
McCarty, the United States (US) Supreme Court discussed at length whether the roadside questioning of
a motorist detained pursuant to aroutine stop should be considered custodial interrogation, nor can it be
considered a formal arrest, by virtue of the nature of the questioning, the expectations of the motorist
and the officer, and the length of time the procedure is conducted.
Same; Same; Same; Same; At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting
officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if
any. - This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer
to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any.
Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any
statement they might make could be use against them. It may also be noted that in this case, these
constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers after petitioner had been arrested for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Miranda Doctrine; In Berkemer vs. McCarty, 468 US 420 (1984), the
US Court noted that the Miranda Warnings must also be given to a person apprehended due to a traffic
violation. In Berkemer, the US Court also noted that the Miranda Warnings must also be given to a
person apprehended due to a traffic violation: The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by the Miranda
are to ensure that the police do not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the
inherently compelling pressures generated by the custodial setting itself, which work to undermine the
individuals will to resist, and as much as possible to free courts from the task of scrutinizing individual
cases to try to determine, after the fact, whether particular confessions were voluntary. Those purposes
are implicated as much by in-custody questioning of persons suspected of misdemeanors as they are by
questioning of persons suspected of felonies. It if were true that petitioner was already deemed arrested
when he was flagged down for a traffic violation and while he was waiting for his ticket, then there would
have been no need for him to be arrested for a second time after the police officers allegedly discovered
the drugs as he was already in their custody.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Warrantless Searches; Instances When a Warrantless Search is
allowed. The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in plain view; (iii) search of moving vehicle; (iv)
consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a stop and frisk search; and (vii) exigent and
emergency circumstances. None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a
lawful arrest, are applicable to this case.

76
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a
question of fact to be determined from the totality of all circumstances. Whether consent to the search
was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all circumstances.
Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of the person giving consent and the
environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant; (2) whether the defendant was in a
public or a secluded location; (3) whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on;
(4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive police procedures; (6)
the defendants belief that no incriminating evidence would be found; (7) the nature of the police
questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning took place; (9) the possibly vulnerable
subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that has the burden of proving, by clear and
positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained, and was freely and voluntarily given. In
this case, all that was alleged was that petitioner was alone at the police station at three in the morning,
accompanied by several police officers. These circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid
consent to a warrantless search.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Stop and frisk; The stop and frisk is merely a limited protective
search of outer clothing for weapons. Neither does the search qualify under the stop and frisk rule.
While the rule normally applies when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may
lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited protective
search of outer clothing for weapons.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Warrantless Search; In Knowles v. Iowa, the US Supreme Court held
that when a police officer stops a person for speeding and correspondingly issues a citation instead of
arresting the latter, this procedure does not authorize the officer to conduct a full search of the car. The
Court therein held that there was no justification for a full-blown search when the officer does not arrest
the motorist. Instead, police officers may only conduct minimal instructions, such as ordering the motorist
to alight from the car or doing a patdown.
FACTS
On March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 oclock in the morning, PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then
assigned at Sub-Station 1 of Naga City Police Station as a traffic enforcer saw the accused, Rodel Luz,
who was coming from the direction of Panganiban Drive and going to Diversion Road, Naga City, driving
a motorcycle without a helmet which prompted him to flag down the accused for violating a municipal
ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet (sic) while driving. Since the place where
he flagged down the accused is almost in front of Sub-Station 1, he invited the accused inside the police
station. Allegedly when PO2 Alteza and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for violation
of municipal ordinance, PO2 Alteza noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on getting something
from his jacket; that he was alerted and told the accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his
jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it. The accused obliged and slowly put out the contents of
the pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal container about two (2) to three (3) inches in
size, including two (2) cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife; that upon seeing the
said container, he asked the accused to open it; that after the accused opened the container, he noticed a
cartoon cover and something beneath it; and that upon his instruction, the accused spilled out the
contents of the container on the table which turned out to be four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which
were empty while the other two (2) contained suspected shabu.
Luz was charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and in its 19 February 2009 Decision, the RTC
convicted petitioner. It found the prosecution evidence sufficient to show that he had been lawfully
arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected to a valid search, which led to the discovery on his

77
person of two plastic sachets later found to contain shabu. The RTC also found his defense of frame-up
and extortion to be weak, self-serving and unsubstantiated.
The appeal to the CA only affirmed the RTCs Decision. Thus, this petition for review.
Issue
Whether or not the arrest was valid.
Held
There was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he
was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense, it is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that
persons voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of
actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is
required. 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.
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a
traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter:
SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver's License. Law enforcement and peace officers of other agencies
duly deputized by the Director shall, in apprehending a driver for any violation of this Act or any
regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules and regulations not contrary to any provisions
of this Act, confiscate the license of the driver concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued by the
Bureau therefor which shall authorize the driver to operate a motor vehicle for a period not exceeding
seventy-two hours from the time and date of issue of said receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall
not be extended, and shall become invalid thereafter. Failure of the driver to settle his case within fifteen
days from the date of apprehension will be a ground for the suspension and/or revocation of his license.
Similarly, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Operations Manual provides the following procedure for
flagging down vehicles during the conduct of checkpoints:
SECTION 7. Procedure in Flagging Down or Accosting Vehicles While in Mobile Car. This rule is a
general concept and will not apply in hot pursuit operations. The mobile car crew shall undertake the
following, when applicable: x x x
m. If it concerns traffic violations, immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket (TCT) or Traffic Violation
Report (TVR). Never indulge in prolonged, unnecessary conversation or argument with the driver or any
of the vehicles occupants; At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket,
petitioner could not be said to have been under arrest. There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza
to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the
period during which petitioner was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting time. In
fact, as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to the police
sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged down almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for
the sake of convenience that they were waiting there. There was no intention to take petitioner into
custody.

78
In flagrante Delicto
Santos
George Antiquera y Codes vs. People of the Philippines
[G.R. No. 180661 December 11, 2013]
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Warrantless Arrests; Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides 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.

Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides 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. This is an arrest in flagrante
delicto. The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.

Same; Same; Searches and Seizures; Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that
resulted from it was likewise illegal. Consequently, the various drug paraphernalia that the police officers
allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid search and
seizure.

Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of
accused Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest was
illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal. Consequently, the various drug
paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found in the house and seized are inadmissible, having
proceeded from an invalid search and seizure. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia is the very
corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice but to acquit the accused. One final note. The
failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his
conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.
Facts
On 11 February 2004, PO1 Gregorio Recio, PO1 Laurence Cabutihan, P/Insp. Eric Ibon, PO1 Rodelio
Rania, and two other civilian operatives on board a patrol car and a tricycle were conducting a police
visibility patrol on David Street, Pasay City, when they saw two unidentified men rush out of a house and
immediately boarded a jeep.
Suspecting that a crime had been committed, the police officers approached the house from where the
men came and peeked through the partially opened door. PO1 Recio and PO1 Cabutihan saw accused
George Antiquera holding an improvised tooter and a pink lighter. Beside him was his live-in partner,
Corazon Cruz, who was holding an aluminum foil and an improvised burner. This prompted the police
officers to enter the house, introduce themselves, and arrest Antiquera and Cruz.
While inspecting the immediate surroundings, PO1 Cabutihan saw a wooden jewelry box on a table. It
contained drug paraphernalia. These paraphernalia were found positive for traces of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held that the arrest of the two accused without a warrant was justified
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The RTC said that the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the police caught both the accused in the act of using shabu and
having drug paraphernalia in their possession.

79
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Antiquera and Cruz was justified under Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Held
No. The warrantless arrest of Antiquera and Cruz was not justified under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Under the said provision, 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. This is an arrest in flagrante delicto, where the overt
act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. The Supreme
Court found that the circumstances in the case at bar do not constitute an arrest made in flagrante delicto.
The police officers themselves claim that they were alerted when they saw two unidentified men rush out
of a house. This made them suspect that a crime had been committed. However, instead of running after
the two fleeing men, what the police officers did was to go to the house where the two men came from.
Even as they peeked through the partially opened door of the house, they saw no activity that warranted
their entering into it. Thus, it was apparent that no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting
officers that authorized their arrest of Antiquera and Cruz.
Considering that the arrest was illegal, it also follows that the search and seizure which resulted from it
was illegal and that the drug paraphernalia allegedly found inside the house were inadmissible as
evidence.

Aguinaldo
People vs Vasquez
G.R. 200304 January 15, 2014
FACTS
CA which affirmed the joint decision of RTC in a consolidated case, convicting the appellant Donald
Vasquez of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs. Initially the case of illegal
possession of drugs was raffled but upon motion it was consolidated with the case of illegal sale of drugs.
On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The pre-trial conference of the cases
was held, but the same was terminated without the parties entering into any stipulation of facts.
During the trial of the prosecution stated the events. There was a confidential informant reported to PO2
Trambulo about the illegal drug activities. Fajardo organized a buy-bust team and during the operation
Vazquez was arrested.
RTC convicted the appellant of the crimes charged. The RTC gave more credence to the prosecutions
evidence given that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part of the
police officers was not overcome. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the appellant.
He argues that the police officers did not have a search warrant or a warrant o f arrest at the time he was
arrested. This occurred despite the fact that the police officers allegedly had ample time to secure a
warrant of arrest against him. Inasmuch as his arrest was illegal, the appellant avers that the evidence
obtained as a result thereof was inadmissible in court.

ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant may assail the validity of arrest

80
 HELD
At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his arrest. 2e reiterated
in People v. Tampis that any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the
accused enter his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against
them before their arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest.
Any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial courts jurisdiction.
The fact of the matter is that the appellant was caught in fagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an
undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation. His arrest, thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5(a)
Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful.
Having established the validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds that the warrantless
seizure of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid

81