RULE 113 - ARREST

Sec. 4. Execution of Warrant

10 Days

Issuance Service Report

 PEOPLE VS. GIVERA 349 SCRA 513

HELD:
The warrant of arrest remains to be enforceable until it is executed,
recalled, or quashed. The ten (10) day period on provided on the rules is
only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return to
the court.
 RULE 113 ARREST, SEC. 5
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;

(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 paragraph (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.
 PEOPLE VS. MALASUGUI 63 PHIL. 221

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Malasugui upon arrested, he voluntarily
permitted the officer to search him and take the articles in
question to be used as evidence against him. Peace officers
may make arrests without judicial warrant not only when a
crime is committed, or is about to be committed in their
presence, but also when there is reason to believe or
sufficient ground to suspect that one has been committed by
the person arrested.
 Warrantless arrest under Paragraph A
(in flagrante delicto arrests)
While in the presence of the peace officer or private
person, the person to be arrested:

1.) Has committed an offense

2.) Actually committing an offense
3.) Attempting to commit an offense
 PEOPLE VS. EVARISTO, 216 SCRA 431
HELD:
The arrest so as to the search and seizure is valid. The seizure of the
firearm was valid and lawful for being incidental to a lawful arrest. The
time the officers heard gunfire, they proceeded to investigate and has
now sufficient knowledge on their part to search the house, and arrest
Evaristo.
 PEOPLE VS. CACO, 222 SCRA 49

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Lilibeth Caco was caught in flagrante selling
marijuana to the poseur buyer. She was then lawfully arrested without a
warrant because she was committing or has just committed a crime in
the presence of the police officers.
 Warrantless arrest under Paragraph B
An offense has just been committed

Person making the arrest has probable cause to

believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
 ALIH VS. CASTRO, 151 SCRA 279
HELD:
The search is not valid, the arrest does not fall on the warrantless arrest
provided in Sec. 5 of Rule 113. It is to note that the officer making the
arrest must have personal knowledge of certain facts or circumstances
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed an offense. In
this case, they failed to do so.
Warrantless arrest under Paragraph C
Person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped:
a.) in a penal establishment
b.) in a place serving his final judgment
c.) in a place where he is temporarily confined while
case is pending
d.) and, while being transferred from one confinement
to another.
 PARULAN VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, 22 SCRA 638

HELD:
The arrest was valid. This case is one of the instances of a
warrantless arrest falling on Paragraph c of Rule 113 wherein
the person to be arrested has escaped from confinement.
Founding principle of this is that at the time of the arrest, the
escapee is in the continuous act of committing a crime which is
evasion the service of his sentence.
 Persons authorized to make an arrest
Private persons
Peace Officers:
Police officers (RA 6945)
NBI agents (RA 157)
Philippine Constabulary officers (Sec. 848, Administrative
Code)
Municipal Mayors
Barangay captains
 US v. SANTOS (36 Phil 853)
The arrest is valid. To err is human. One should however not
expect too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to
exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has no
opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste on
his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal.
Even the most conscientious officer must at times be misled. If,
therefore, under trying circumstances and in a zealous effort to
obey the orders of his superior officer and to enforce the law, a
peace officer makes a mere mistake in good faith, he should be
exculpated. Otherwise, the courts will put a premium on crime
and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of themselves
violating the law.
 Duty of person making arrest
Person arrested in paragraphs A & B:
Offense cognizable in RTC, person must be delivered
to the nearest police station or jail and a complaint
or information must be filed against him.
Offense cognizable in MTC, person must be
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and the
corresponding charge preferred against him with the
proper court.
 RULE 113 - ARREST
Sec. 4. Execution of Warrant

10 Days

Issuance Service Report

Once the judge issues the warrant of arrest, the head of the office
to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for execution has the
duty to make sure the warrant is served within 10 days from
its receipt. Once the period expires, the officer to whom it was
assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who
issued the warrant. In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he
shall state the reasons therefor.

The reason for the mandatory 10-day to execute and report after
expiration of said 10 days is to hope that it would remedy the delay
in the disposition of criminal cases. But there is no penalty for the
failure to serve the warrant of arrest in the said period. However,
be it noted that no time limit is fixed for validity of an arrest
warrant; it is subsistent and continues to be in force even if not
served within the mandatory 10-days as long as it has not been
recalled, or the person named therein arrested or otherwise
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
 PEOPLE VS. GIVERA 349 SCRA 513

HELD:
The warrant of arrest remains to be enforceable until it is executed,
recalled, or quashed. The ten (10) day period on provided on the rules is
only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return to
the court.

In the case of People vs. Givera, The Supreme Court held that the accused-
appellant claims that his arrest at the East Avenue Medical Center on May
4, 1996 was made without a warrant. This is not true. He was arrested by
virtue of a warrant issued by the court on April 27, 1995. However, as the
records show, the warrant of arrest was returned unserved by the arresting
officer on June 7, 1995 as accused-appellant could not be found. He was
finally found only on May 4, 1996. Now, no alias warrant of arrest is needed
to make the arrest. Unless specifically provided in the warrant, the same
remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed. The ten-day
period provided in Rule 113, Sec. 4 is only a directive to the officer
executing the warrant to make a return to the court.

FACTS: Accused, Cesar Givera was charged guilty of murder of Eusebio

Gardon. The court issued a warrant of arrest on April 1995. The warrant
was returned unserved by the arresting officer on June 1995 because
Givera cannot be found. Givera was only arrested at East Avenue Medical
Center on May 1996.

HELD: The warrant of arrest remains to be enforceable until it is executed,

recalled, or quashed. The ten (10) day period on provided on the rules is
only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return to the
court.
 RULE 113 ARREST, SEC. 5
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;

(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 paragraph (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.

As a general rule, NO peace officer or person has the power or

authority to arrest anyone without a warrant except on the situations
provided in this section.

BURDEN OF PROOF is with the person arresting or causing the arrest

to show that the arrest was lawful.

The warrantless arrest must fall within this section because as held out
in People vs. Malasugui: To hold that no criminal can, in any case,
be arrested and searched without a warrant, would be to leave
society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the
most expert, and the most depraved of criminals facilitating their
escape in many instances.

In this case (NEXT SLIDE)

 PEOPLE VS. MALASUGUI 63 PHIL. 221

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Malasugui upon arrested, he voluntarily
permitted the officer to search him and take the articles in
question to be used as evidence against him. Peace officers
may make arrests without judicial warrant not only when a
crime is committed, or is about to be committed in their
presence, but also when there is reason to believe or
sufficient ground to suspect that one has been committed by
the person arrested.

FACTS:
Tan Why, a Chinese merchant was found lying on the ground
with several wounds in the head and died. When Tan was
found on the morning in question. He was still alive and
answered Kagui. Kagui Malasugui was known and the
Lieutenant of the Constabulary ordered his arrest. Kagui was
arrested and searched without opposition on his part, and
was found articles as sufficient evidence against him.

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Malasugui upon arrested, he voluntarily
permitted the officer to search him and take the articles in
question to be used as evidence against him. Peace officers
may make arrests without judicial warrant not only when a
crime is committed, or is about to be committed in their
presence, but also when there is reason to believe or
sufficient ground to suspect that one has been committed by
the person arrested.

4
 Warrantless arrest under Paragraph A
(in flagrante delicto arrests)
While in the presence of the peace officer or private
person, the person to be arrested:

1.) Has committed an offense

2.) Actually committing an offense
3.) Attempting to commit an offense

Elements for an Inflagrante delicto arrest:

The person to be arrested has committed, is actually

committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and
Such is in the presence of the peace officer or private
person to make the arrest.

In the presence, definition

An offense is committed in the presence or within the
view of the person making the arrest when he sees the
offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances
created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof;
or the offense is continuing, or has been consummated,
at the time the arrest is made.
People v. Evaristo (216 SCRA 431)

IN THIS CASE. (Next slide)

5
 PEOPLE VS. EVARISTO, 216 SCRA 431
HELD:
The arrest so as to the search and seizure is valid. The seizure of the
firearm was valid and lawful for being incidental to a lawful arrest. The
time the officers heard gunfire, they proceeded to investigate and has
now sufficient knowledge on their part to search the house, and arrest
Evaristo.

FACTS:
Police officers while on patrol heard burst of gunfire and saw
Rosillo firing a gun into the air. Rosillo ran to the nearby
house of Evaristo. The officers noticed that Carillo was in
possession of an illegal firearm. Other officers were
permitted by Evaristo to search his house and found illegal
firearms in his possession wherein he was arrested and the
firearms were seized.

HELD:
The arrest so as to the search and seizure is valid. The seizure
of the firearm was valid and lawful for being incidental to a
lawful arrest. The time the officers heard gunfire, they
proceeded to investigate and has now sufficient knowledge
on their part to search the house, and arrest Evaristo.

6
 PEOPLE VS. CACO, 222 SCRA 49

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Lilibeth Caco was caught in flagrante selling
marijuana to the poseur buyer. She was then lawfully arrested without a
warrant because she was committing or has just committed a crime in
the presence of the police officers.

FACTS:
Patrolman, Quillan received an information from a civilian
that spouses Caco were selling marijuana in their house.
The police officers conducted a buy-bust operation and
designated patrolman Quillan as poseur-buyer. He went
to the house and was solded a marijuana by Lilibeth Caco.
There, they conducted a search and confisacted the
marijuanas and arrested Caco.

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Lilibeth Caco was caught in flagrante
selling marijuana to the poseur buyer. She was then
lawfully arrested without a warrant because she was
committing or has just committed a crime in the presence
of the police officers.

7
 Warrantless arrest under Paragraph B
An offense has just been committed

Person making the arrest has probable cause to

believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
committed it.

Elements of a warrantless arrest under paragraph

B are:

1. An offense has just been committed

2. The person to make the arrest has probable cause
to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
committed it.

An illustration of this provision is. (next slide)

8
 ALIH VS. CASTRO, 151 SCRA 279
HELD:
The search is not valid, the arrest does not fall on the warrantless arrest
provided in Sec. 5 of Rule 113. It is to note that the officer making the
arrest must have personal knowledge of certain facts or circumstances
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed an offense. In
this case, they failed to do so.

FACTS: A group of 200 peace officers raided without a search warrant the compound
of Alih et. Al. in search of loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives. The
group of Alih resisted and a crossfire between them and the peace officers
occurred and many were killed. The things in the compound were also seized. The
next morning, the group of Alih surrendered and filed prohibition and argued that
the search is not valid because of no search warrant.

HELD: The search is not valid, the arrest does not fall on the warrantless arrest
provided in Sec. 5 of Rule 113. It is to note that the officer making the arrest must
have personal knowledge of certain facts or circumstances indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed an offense. In this case, they failed to do so.

Alih v. Castro (151 SCRA 279)

Personal knowledge must be based on probable cause which means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.

9
 Warrantless arrest under Paragraph C
Person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped:
a.) in a penal establishment
b.) in a place serving his final judgment
c.) in a place where he is temporarily confined while
case is pending
d.) and, while being transferred from one confinement
to another.

Elements of a warrantless arrest under paragraph C are:

1. The person to be arrested is a prisoner

2. Said prisoner escaped from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or while he is being transferred from one place
to another.

Founding principle
At the time of arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of
committing a crime, such as the evasion of service of
sentence.

Illustrating, (next slide)

10
 PARULAN VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, 22 SCRA 638

HELD:
The arrest was valid. This case is one of the instances of a
warrantless arrest falling on Paragraph c of Rule 113 wherein
the person to be arrested has escaped from confinement.
Founding principle of this is that at the time of the arrest, the
escapee is in the continuous act of committing a crime which is
evasion the service of his sentence.

FACTS:
Ricardo Parulan was serving life imprisonment in a state
penitentiary in Muntinlupa. While still serving his sentence,
he escaped from his confinement and was recaptured
without a warrant in Manila. He was prosecuted for the
crime of evasion of service of sentence under RPC. Parulan
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for his immediate
release from the unlawful and illegal confinement..

HELD:
The arrest was valid. This case is one of the instances of a
warrantless arrest falling on Paragracph c of Rule 113
wherein the person to be arrested has escaped from
confinement. Founding principle of this is that at the time of
the arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of
committing a crime which is evasion the service of his
sentence.

11
 Persons authorized to make an arrest
Private persons
Peace Officers:
Police officers (RA 6945)
NBI agents (RA 157)
Philippine Constabulary officers (Sec. 848, Administrative
Code)
Municipal Mayors
Barangay captains

Arrests made by peace officers

Unless acting in bad faith, they are not criminally
liable even if in the process they have committed a
mistake.

12
 US v. SANTOS (36 Phil 853)
The arrest is valid. To err is human. One should however not
expect too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to
exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has no
opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste on
his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal.
Even the most conscientious officer must at times be misled. If,
therefore, under trying circumstances and in a zealous effort to
obey the orders of his superior officer and to enforce the law, a
peace officer makes a mere mistake in good faith, he should be
exculpated. Otherwise, the courts will put a premium on crime
and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of themselves
violating the law.

US v. Santos (36 Phil 853)

Facts: Dionisio Santos, a policeman, acting under the orders of
his chief who desired to put a stop to pilfering in a certain
locality, patrolled this district, and about midnight, seeing two
persons in front of an uninhabited house and then entering an
uninhabited camarin, arrested them without warrant, although
no crime had been committed, and took them to the municipal
presidencia whereby they were detained in the jail for six or
seven hours when they were released.

Held: The arrest is valid. One should however not expect too
much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to
exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has
no opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in
haste on his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal.
To err is human. Even the most conscientious officer must at
times be misled. If, therefore, under trying circumstances and
in a zealous effort to obey the orders of his superior officer and
to enforce the law, a peace officer makes a mere mistake in
good faith, he should be exculpated. Otherwise, the courts will
put a premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers
through a fear of themselves violating the law.

13
 Duty of person making arrest
Person arrested in paragraphs A & B:
Offense cognizable in RTC, person must be delivered
to the nearest police station or jail and a complaint
or information must be filed against him.
Offense cognizable in MTC, person must be
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and the
corresponding charge preferred against him with the
proper court.

Duty of person making the arrest

Person arrested under par. (a) and (b), offense recognizable by RTC
Person must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and a
complaint or information filed against him in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule
112.

Person arrested under par. (a) and (b), offense recognizable by MTC
Person must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and the
corresponding charge against him with the proper court.

Person arrested a fugitive from justice

Person must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and notice of
his apprehension and detention furnished to the appropriate authorities.

Complaint must be filed within the periods provided for in Article 125,
RPC, as amended by EO 272.

14