Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Warrantless Arrest & Search
Warrantless Arrest & Search
Note: This speech was originally published in The Manila Bulletin Newspaper
Online (www.mb.com.ph). Due to its importance to the PNP, this office
reproduced it entirely for the information of our policemen in the field.
Under the Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5, a warrantless arrest, also
known as "citizen’s arrest," is lawful under three circumstances:
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.
To be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the
arrest or immediately thereafter, and only at the place where the suspect
was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.
A valid arrest must precede the search, not vice versa. One exception to the
rule on search is waiver by the suspect. For example, where the shabu was
discovered by virtue of a valid warrantless search, and the accused himself
freely gave his consent to the search, the prohibited drugs found as a result
were inadmissible as evidence.
* Seizure of prohibited articles in plain view. The seizure should comply with
the following requirements:
(1) A prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest, in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties.
(2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
right to be where they are.
(4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
As a lawyer and a former RTC judge, I am a very strong law and-order person.
The people upholding law in society are policemen and therefore, all doubts
should be resolved in favor of the police. After all, the Rules of Court provides
for the disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed.
I submit that it is not fair to demand that the police should risk their very
lives to uphold the rule of law, and yet should be held in low esteem by
people whose mission in life is to change or disregard the law, outside of
constitutional processes. Accordingly, as vice chair of the Senate Finance
Committee, I will file at the end of the Senate budget hearings, a motion to
appropriate the sum of R37 billion for the Philippine National Police.
* More firearms, both short and long; more radios, whether base, mobile, or
handheld.
It is not the guns or armament or the money they can pay. It is the close
cooperation that makes them win the day. It is not the individual or the
police as a whole but the everlasting teamwork.