4th Periodical Quiz

1. Ironman files a motion to quash the information before the court has issued a warrant of arrest on
him. Should the court first resolve the motion to quash before issuing the warrant?

Yes. However, this depends on the situation and upon deliberate hearing as executed by the judge.
According to Section 1, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, a motion to quash may be filed any time before
the accused enters plea. If for example a judge rules that a court first resolves the motion to quash
before issuance of warrant, then there is a high probability that it becomes a form of delay causing
evasion of the respondent to arrest. However, it preserves the criminal due process as provided by the
Constitution under Section 14 of Article 3. Since the Rules of Criminal Procedure is silent to this issue
and that the Consititution reigns supreme over the laws of the land, a judge should have the
determination of information of the offense to charge within time frame before issuing a warrant of
arrest.

2. What may be instances when a warrant of arrest is not necessary?

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5, a warrantless arrest, also known as "citizen’s arrest," is
lawful under three circumstances:
a. Under the ‘in flagrante delicto’ rule which states that when, in the presence of the policeman, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. Under the ‘hot pursuit’ rule which state that 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.

3. Evil man and Joker divested passengers of a PUV of their cash and belongings including the vest of
one Robin. The passengers immediately sought the help of policemen, which formed a team to track
down the suspects. Robin who went with the policemen saw Joker casually walking in the same vicinity
wearing his vest. Joker was arrested without a warrant. Decide on the validity or invalidity of the arrest.
Explain.

The warrantless arrest of Joker is valid. Under Section 5b of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a warrantless
arrest is lawful in a situation wherein, first, an offense has just been committed and that, second, a
person has probable to cause to believe on the basis of personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that a certain individual has committed it. First, the hasty response of the passengers to notify the police
made the gap between the commission of crime and the search of the suspects quicker. Second, Robin,
being an owner of the vested seized by Joker, has personal knowledge on the observed features on the
perpetrator and the presence of his personal item in possession of the latter. Thus, given that the
circumstances fulfilled the requirements of the hot pursuit rule as mentioned in the cited provision of
the Rules of Court, the ctitizen’s arrest is lawful.

4. Two peace officers were conducting surveillance along a street around 10:00 o’clock in the morning
when they spotted a person carrying a “buri” bag acting suspiciously. They approached the man and
introduced themselves as peace officers. Right then the man attempted to flee, but it was thwarted
despite his resistance. The policemen checked the “buri” bag and found firearm, ammunitions and
smoke grenade. Later he was brought to the station and asked if he has license and authority to possess
the firearm and ammunitions. Failing to do so he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions and later convicted. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The issue on the
warrantless search and inadmissibility of the items seized was elevated to the Supreme Court. Decide
with reasons.

The warrantless arrest and admissibility of the items seized is invalid. Under Section 5a, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court, a warrantless arrest is lawful in the presence of a policeman provided that the person to
be arrested has committed, actually committing or attempting to commit an offense. It is on the
perception of a suspect that we base our test of validity. An attempt to flee, even while officers initially
introduce themselves, is subject to a suspicious conduct. However, an arrest based merely on suspicion
is not sufficient. There is no genuine reason to approach a person with buri aside from the policemen’s
suspicion for an unknown reason which may be biased for an unknown reason. There is no overt act
provided that caused, is causing or may cause offense. The evasive nature caused by the man with buri
is a reaction which may be due to numerous reasons citing trauma and others as an example. This is
different to that of Esquillo v People, wherein a crystalline substance was first seen which established a
genuine reason to stop and frisk the person. Since the warrantless arrest under the in flagrante delicto
rule does not stand, the items seized are inadmissible. Hence, the ruling affirmed by the Court of
Appeals is unmeritorious.

5. An activist was arrested following a presidential proclamation of a state of national emergency. He

was subjected to inquest for Inciting to Sedition based on a speech given during a rally on the
anniversary of the EDSA Revolution. Several days after the first inquest, the activist was again subjected
to inquest for rebellion in conspiracy with Cpt. America as leaders of the rebellion. Decide on the validity
of the inquest proceedings for rebellion.

The Inquest Proceedings for Rebellion is not valid. Proper inquest proceedings only occur if accused was
lawfully arrested without warrant. Even if lawfully arrested, the activist was brought for inquest first for
the crime of inciting sedition. In the case of Beltran v People, the court ruled the similar case as void for
bringing up a second inquest proceeding and called it as an overstep on the authority provided to the
prosecutors. Thus, it is inherent that the inquest proceedings for rebellion is void.