RULE 113 - ARREST1

Pertinent Pleadings & Documents:

(1) Warrant of Arrest
(2) Petition for Habeas Corpus
(3) Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest
(4) Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause

I. Nature and Definition

A. Definition
Rule 113, Secs. 1, 2;
Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993);
People v. Sequiño, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);

Cf. Diplomatic and parliamentary immunities from arrest

Const. (1987), art. VI, sec. 11;
Rev. Pen. Code, art. 145;
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Arts. 31, 37;
Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V;

B. Types
1. With a warrant
a. When and how warrant issued
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 112, sec. 5;
May dismiss instead of issue warrant
Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009;
People v. Yadao, G.R. Nos. 162144-54, Nov. 13, 2012 (EB)T
“[O]nly when evidence plainly fails to establish probable cause.”
De los Santos-Dio v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 178947& G.R. No.
179079, June
26, 2013T
Young v. People, G.R. No. 213910, Feb. 03, 2016
NO T E: Co m p are Yad ao to San to s -Dio
Judges must proceed with caution in dismissing cases for

1
Updated Jan.. 2019

-1-
 lack of probable cause:
Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. v. Carandang,
G.R. No. 206958, [November 8, 2017]T

b. Requisites for issuance

Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 112, Sec. 6 (a);
Rule 112, Sec. 8;

(1) By a Regional Trial Court:

Concept of probable cause in issuance of warrant:
Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994)T
Rule 112 (5); Options; Probable cause determination; Distinction
between Fiscal and Judge’s determination of probable cause:
Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014T
People v. Yadao, supra
De los Santos-Dio v. Caguioa, supra
Young v. People, supra
Personal determination:
Must judge personally examine complainant & witnesses?:
Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)
Procedure & Options in Determination of Probable Cause:
Okabe v. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685 (2004)T
People v. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)
Roberts v. C.A., 254 SCRRA 307**
Ho vs. People, 280 SCRA 285 (1997)
AAA vs. Carbonell, 524 SCRA 496 (2007)
DOJ-National Prosecution Service Manual for Prosecutors, Part VI,
sec. 1;

(2) Inferior Courts

Rule 112, Sec. 8 (b) in relation to 5 (b):
Must examine complainant and witnesses:
Conquilla v. Bernardo, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737, [February 9,
2011]
Not mandatory to issue warrant:
Gutierrez v. Hernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, June 8, 2007,
Sesbreño v. Aglugub, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1581

c. How effected or served:

Duty of arresting officer (Sec.3)
Execution of warrant (Sec. 4)

-2-
 Time of making arrest (Sec. 6)
Supreme Court Circular No. 95-96
See Colorado v. Agapito, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1658, July 3, 2007
Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant (Sec. 7)

People v. Lumayok, 139 SCRA 1 (1985);

People v. Albior, 163 SCRA 332 (1988);

d. Assistance; breaking into and out of building or enclosure

Officer may summon assistance (Sec. 10)
See Indirect Assault, Art. 149 (RPC)
Right of officer to break into or break out of buildings or
enclosue (Sec. 11 & 12)
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301,
September 29, 2004

2. Warrantless (In flag ran te De lic to & “Hot Pursuit”)

B rie f h is to ry o n w arran tle s s arre s ts
See Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, [November 10, 2014]

a. When justified:

(1) Old Rule:

Rule 113, sec. 5, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);
People v. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755,
April 14, 1999 (EB)
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
Padilla v. C.A., 269 SCRA 402 (1997)

U.S. Rule on Warrantless Arrests:

United States v. Watson (No. 74-538), 423 U.S. 411

(2) New Rule:

Se c . 5 (a) (In flag ran te d e lic to ):
O v e rt Ac t T e s t:
People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, [July 30, 2014]T
Veridiano v. People, G.R. No. 200370, [June 7, 2017
Rule 113, sec. 5
Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)

Personal knowledge; criminal record:

-3-
 People v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 174774, Aug. 31, 2011
“Penal knowledge”:
Valdez v. C.A., G.R. No. 170180, Nov. 23, 2007
Intent to arrest; “jaywalking”:
Homar v. People, G.R. No. 182534, Sept. 2, 2015
Traffic ticketing not an arrest and ground for search:
Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788. February 29, 2012.

People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999)

See J. Panganiban, concurring.**
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, Feb. 19, 2001**
People v. Binad Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003);
People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)

Se c . 5 (b ) (Ho t Pu rs u it):
Evolution of Sec. 5 (b):
See Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, Nov. 10, 2014 T
“Personal Knowledge . . .”
Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, Nov. 10, 2014 T
Abelita III v. Doria, G.R. No. 170672, [August 14, 2009]

People v. Manago y Acut, G.R. No. 212340, [August 17, 2016]T

Veridiano v. People, G.R. No. 200370, [June 7, 2017]T
Test of “immediecy”:
Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, Nov. 10, 2014 T
Read J. Leonen Dissent
Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138(1992)T
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
People v. Doria, supra
Larranaga v. C A, 287 SCRA 581 (1998);
People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003);
People vs. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)
People v. Mendez, G.R. No. 147671, Nov. 21, 2002 (EB);
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);
People v. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, Jan. 16, 2002 (EB)T

b. Method of arrest by officer

Rule 113, sec. 8;
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)

R.A. 7438 [Gu id e lin e s , p ro c e d u re s an d d u tie s o f o ffic e rs arre s tin g ,

d e tain in g , in v itin g o r in v e s tig atin g at th e tim e o f arre s t o r at

-4-
 u s to d ial in te rro g atio n ];
Lumanog v. People, 644 PHIL 296-469
People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188, [July 23, 2004]T

c. Method of arrest by private person

Rule 113, sec. 9;

d. Post-arrest procedure
Rule 112, sec. 7;

e. Exceptions construed strictly

People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999);
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1985);

f. Special Rule for Juveniles in Conflict with Law

Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (RJCL), secs. 6, 7;
Rep. Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006;
JJWA), secs. 21, 22;

3. John Doe warrants:

People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169;
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988);
DOJ Circular No. 50, October 29, 1990;T

4. “DNA” Warrants:
Pe o p le v . Ro b in s o n , 222 P.3d 55 (Cal. 2010)
Frank B. Ulmer, Using DNA Profiles to Obtain "John Doe" Arrest
Warrants and Indictments, 58 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1585 (2001),
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol58/iss4/14
DNA warrants: A panacea for old, cold rape cases?
Georgetown Law Journal, Apr 2002 by Valdivieso, Veronica

5. Invitations:
Babst, et al. v. NIB, 132 SCRA 316 (1984);
People v. Sequino,(1996);
People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999)
R.A. No. 7438
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999;
305 SCRA 740 (1999)**
People v. Olivarez, Jr., G.R. No. 77865 | 1998-12-04

II. Custodial Investigation

-5-
A. Source, Definition, Scope and Procedure

1. Definition
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999;
305 SCRA 740 (1999)**
People v. Guting, G.R. No. 205412, Sept. 9, 2015T
Navallo v. Sanidaganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, July 16, 1994**
People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001;
People v. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA 25;
People v. Rodriguez, 341 SCRA 645 (2000);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2(f), par. 2;
Cf. Babst v. NIB, 132 SCRA 31 (1984);
People v. Muleta, 309 SCRA 148 (1999);
People v. Tan, 286 SCRA 207 (1998);
Confession and Admission Distinguished:
People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000);

2. Duty of police during custodial investigation; procedure

- Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12;

- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966);
- People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
- People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);
- Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2(b), (c), (d);
Cf. People v. Ordono, 334 SCRA 673 (2000);

B. Rights Involved and consequences of violation

1. Rights involved
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (1), (2);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f);
People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
People v. Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004**

2. Consequences of violation
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12 (3)
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971);
New York v. Quarles, 104 S. Ct. 2626 (1984);
People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 (1981);
People v. Figueroa, 335 SCRA 299 (2000);
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 429 (1971);
Republic Act No. 7438, sec. 4:

-6-
 C. Specific requirements in case law:

1. Waiver of right to counsel

People v. Caguioa, 141 SCRA 289 (1980);
People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);
People v. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);

Cf. People v. Bacor, 306 SCRA 522 (1999);

People v. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (1998);

2. Counsel of choice during custodial investigation

People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190 (2000);
People v. Labtan, 320 SCRA 140 (1999);
People v. Samulde, 336 SCRA 632 (2000);
People v. Gallardo, 323 SCRA 218 (2000);
People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188, [July 23, 2004]T

3. Compliance with requirement to inform person detained of rights

People v. Canoy, 328 SCRA 385 (2000);
People v. Sapal, 328 SCRA 417 (2000);
People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 517 (1986);
People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986);
People v. Continente, 339 SCRA 1 (2000);

4. Police line-up, show-up

People v. Amestuzo, G.R. No. 104383, July 12, 2001; 413 Phil. 500 (2001)
Gamboa v. Cruz, June 27, 1988;
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967);
People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000);
People v. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, Jan. 16, 2002 (EB)T

5. Proof of voluntariness of confession; burden on prosecution

People v. Jara, 144 SCRA 516 (1986);
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);

6. Exceptional cases of uncounseled confessions not held to be excluded

People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997);
People v. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1 (1999);

But cf. People v. Morada, 307 SCRA 362 (1999);

III. Rights and Remedies

-7-
A. Rights of persons under arrest
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 12;
Rule 113, sec. 14;
RA No. 7438, sec. 2;
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (2002)**
People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990);
People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985);
People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986);
People v. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496 (1987);

Cf. V.V. Mendoza, The Right to Counsel in Custodial Interrogations, 61 PHIL. L. J.

409 (1986);

B. Remedies

1. Motion to Quash Warrant

2 (c), ii , Revised Guidelines For Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(A.M. No. 15-06-10 SC)
Miranda vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006)
Cf. - Talag vs. Reyes, 430 SCRA 428 (2004)
De Joya vs. Marquez, 481 SCRA 376 (2006)

2. Motion to quash information; Preliminary investigation/Reinvestigation

2 (c), i, v , Revised Guidelines For Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(A.M. No. 15-06-10 SC)
Rule 117, secs. 1, 3;
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (1968);
Alimpoos v. CA, 106 SCRA 159 (1981);

3. Motion for determination of probable cause?

Rule 112, Sec. 5:
People v. Yadao, G.R. Nos. 162144-54, Nov. 13, 2012 (EB)
De los Santos-Dio v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 178947&
G.R. No. 179079, June 26, 2013

4. Bail
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 14;
RJCL, secs. 15, 16, 17;
JJWA, secs. 34, 35, 36 cf. sec. 4(p);
Rule 114, sec. 26;
Okabe v. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685 (2004)T
Panada v. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371 (1997);

-8-
5. (a) Habeas Corpus
Rule 102
In re Salibo v. Warden, G.R. No. 197597, April 8, 2015T
Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, Oct. 7, 2008
Ilagan v. Enrile, 139 SCRA 349 (1985);
Velasco v. CA, 245 SCRA 677 (1995);
Moncupa v. Enrile, 141 SCRA 233 (1986);

(b) Writ of Amparo ( A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) &

Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
V.V. Mendoza, A Note On The Writ Of Amparo, PLJ 82 No. 4 (2008)
State participation, indispensable:
Navia v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012**
Rubrico vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233 (2010)
Yano vs. Sanchez, 612 SCRA 347 (2010)
Razon, Jr. Vs. Tagitis, 612 SCRA 685 (2010)

(c) Effects of plea on objections to legality of arrest

People v. Alojado, 305 SCRA 236 (1999);
People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 (1999);
See cited case in Esquillo vs. People, J. Bersamin
Dissenting Aug. 25, 2010
People vs. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)

Cf. also Non-curability of illegal nature of arrest

Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990);
Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991);
Bagcal v. Villaraza, 120 SCRA 525 (1983);

6. Criminal liability for unlawful arrest

Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 124-126;

7. Suppression of evidence obtained

Const. (1987), art. III, secs. 3(2), 12(3), 12(4);
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975);
Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859 (1948);
Cf. Rule 126, sec. 14;

-9-
 RULE 114 - BAIL

Pertinent pleadings:
(1) Motion to set bail/Petition for bail
(2) Motion to reduce bail
Pertinent Rules and Laws:
1) Rule 114, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
2) Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails By Enforcing the Rights of Accused
Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial (A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC [March 18, 2014])
3) Bail Not Required In Certain Offenses (R.A. No. 6036)
4) Recognizance Act of 2012" (R.A. No. 10389)
PPA-DOJ Internal Guidelines for the Implementation of Republic Act No. 10389
5) Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC)

I. Nature and Definition

A. Definition; persons covered or required to post bail

- Rule 114, secs. 1, 3;

Feliciano v. Pasicolan, 2 SCRA 888 (1961) (EB)
Villaseñor v. Abaño, G.R. No. L-23599, September 29, 1967 (EB)
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);
Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 (2006)
Cortes v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);
People v. Manallo, 400 SCRA 129 (2003);
People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283 (1995)
SC-Admin. Circ. No. 2-92 Jan. 20, 1992 Cancellation of Bail Bond of
Accused Convicted of Capital Offense by the Regional Trial Court

B. Nature

1. Matter of right
- Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13;
- Rule 114, sec. 4;
- JJWA, secs.34-37;
- RJCL, sec. 15, 16;
- People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991);
- San Miguel v. Judge Maceda, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749, April 4, 2007

Cf. Arraignment not pre-requisite to bail

- Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000;
- Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 396 SCRA 443 (2003);

-10-
 Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847. August 18, 2015**
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, July 12, 2016 (Resolution)**

2. Discretionary

- Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 13;

- Rule 114, secs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 24;
- RJCL, sec. 17;
- Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 756 (1946);
- People v. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1988);
- Ocampo v. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55 (1946);
- Siazon v. Judge, 4 SCRA 184 (1971);
- Mamolo v. Narisima, 252 SCRA 613 (1995);

Cf. Duties of Judge

- Cortes v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1 (1997);
- People v. Tuppal, 395 SCRA 72 (2003);

See also Interim bail

- Enrile v. Perez, G.R. No. 147785 (resolution of the Supreme Court En banc
dated May 5, 2001);

3. Effect of posting bail on illegal arrest, lack or irregular preliminary

investigation:
Sec. 26, Rule 113
Okabe vs. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685 (2004)

II. Procedure
10, III, Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M.
No. 15-06-10-SC)
1. Petition for Bail
2. Evidence in Petition for Bail
3. Non-suspension of the presentation of evidence

III. Types and conditions of bail

A. Corporate surety
- Rule 114, secs. 1. 2, 10, 13, 21, 22;

B. Cash deposit
- Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 14, 21;

-11-
 C. Property
- Rule 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22;

D. Recognizance
- Bail Not Required In Certain Offenses (R.A. No. 6036)
Tubao v. Judge Barataman, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1384, April 11, 2002
- “Recognizance Act of 2012" (R.A. No. 10389)
PPA-DOJ Internal Guidelines for the Implementation of Republic Act No. 10389
- Rule 114, secs. 1, 2, 15, 16;
- RJCL, secs. 6(i), 15;
- JJWA, secs. 4(p), 35;

IV. Amount of bail; when not required

A. Guidelines
- Rule 114, sec. 9;
- Dela Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971);
- Villasenor v. Abano, 21 SCRA 321 (1967);

B. When not required or reduced

- Rule 114, secs. 16, 20;
- Rep. Act No. 6036;
C. Rule for Complex Crimes:
People v. Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09. December 8, 2015 (EB)

V. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail; remedies for violation of bail conditions

- Rule 114, secs. 21, 22, 23;Bail

VI. Bail filed with other courts:

- Rule 114, Sec. 17
- Re: Anonymous Letter-complaint against Hon. Tamang, 617 SCRA 428 (2010)

VII. Bail on Appeal:

- Sec. 5
Consent of bondsman necessary:
Maguddatu v. C.A., G.R. No. 139599, February 23, 2000
Leviste vs. C.A., G.R. No. 189122. March 17, 2010T

-12-