Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Part V: Warrantless Arrests and Detention

Digesting every warrantless search and seizure variation took a while, but it feels good to not have any loose ends. I guess time is the price to pay for a full understanding of the law. Now we can just look back at the posts I made, focus on the highlighted parts (the ones useful for examination purposes), and look at the non-highlighted discussion if I need more clarification.

Anyway, let’s move on to warrantless arrests.

Nachura identifies 4 types of warrantless arrests:
1. In flagrante delicto arrest
2. “hot pursuit” arrest
3. arrest of an escapee
4. when the right is voluntarily waived

The first 3 types are embedded in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The fourth one is probably included by Nachura out of logic.

1. In flagrante delicto arrest
2. “hot pursuit” arrest
3. arrest of an escapee

Luckily, we already discussed the first 3 in our post on searches incidental to a lawful arrest.

I’ll just copy and paste it here:

For warrantless arrests, we’ll steal this discussion from Manibog v. People (2019):

[For an arrest to be lawful, a warrant of arrest must have been judicially issued or there was a lawful warrantless arrest as provided for in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court:

SECTION 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.

For valid warrantless arrests under Section 5(a) and (b), the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the offense. The difference is that under Section 5(a), the arresting officer must have personally witnessed the crime; meanwhile, under Section 5(b), the arresting officer must have had probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed an offense. Nonetheless, whether under Section 5(a) or (b), the lawful arrest generally precedes, or is substantially contemporaneous, with the search.]

We have to memorize these 3 instances of a valid warrantless arrest for us to apply a valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. A long line of cases tells us that THE ARREST MUST PRECEDE THE SEARCH. This process cannot be reversed. Also, we have to take note that a private person may conduct a warrantless arrest.

The first one, Section 5(a), refers to an in flagrante delicto arrest which requires two elements:
(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.
–People v. Chua, 2003

The second one, Section 5(b), refers to a hot pursuit arrest.:
[The rule requires that an offense has just been committed. It connotes “immediacy in point of time.” That a crime was in fact committed does not automatically bring the case under this rule. An arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court entails a time element from the moment the crime is committed up to the point of arrest.

Law enforcers need not personally witness the commission of a crime. However, they must have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested committed it.]
–Veridiano v. People, 2017

The hot pursuit arrest requires probable cause. If you can still remember the definition of probable cause for arrests, you can see how it fits in the second paragraph of the passage above:
“such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”
–Agcaoili v. Molina, 1995

Let’s ignore the third one, Rule 113 Sec. 5(c), because it’s pretty clear cut that arresting officers can apprehend an escapee.

Moving on, the obvious difference between in flagrante delicto and hot pursuit arrest is that the former requires that the arresting officer personally witnessed the crime.

A tricky part in a hot pursuit arrest is how to determine the “immediacy in point of time” or that “a crime has just been committed.” In other words, what is the maximum length of time allowed for it to still be considered a hot pursuit arrest, therefore, having no need to acquire a warrant of arrest?

There really is no rule as to the exact time allowable. The longest possible time allowed is on the same day as in People v. Tonog, Jr (1992).

I think one bonus element to include in our answers is to know whether there was enough time to secure a search warrant without risking the escape of the suspects. To illustrate, let’s continue the discussion in Veridiano v. People (2017):

[People v. Gerente illustrates a valid arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court. In Gerente, the accused was convicted for murder and for violation of Republic Act No. 6425. He assailed the admissibility of dried marijuana leaves as evidence on the ground that they were allegedly seized from him pursuant to a warrantless arrest. On appeal, the accused’s conviction was affirmed. This Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was justified under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court. The police officers had personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the accused killed the victim:
The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did. (Emphasis supplied)]

Note the italicized sentences. They will give us an idea of the time element required in a hot pursuit arrest. It is not often discussed in jurisprudence, but I think it helps to add it in our answers.

Another tricky part in a hot pursuit arrest is how can we determine that there is probable cause? The answer really depends on each case because:
[“it is a pragmatic question to be determined in each case in light of the particular circumstances and the particular offense involved.”]
–Pestilos v. Generoso, 2014 (A gold mine for hot pursuit arrests)

It should also be noted that the probable cause here should be held to lesser standards as the probable cause required in the issuance of a warrant of arrest:
[Hence, in Santos, the Court acknowledged the inherent limitations of determining probable cause in warrantless arrests due to the urgency of its determination in these instances. The Court held that one should not expect too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Oftentimes, he has no opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste on his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal.]
–Pestilos v. Generoso, 2014

The above passage would not be useful as a bar “bullet,” but only for purposes of understanding. Anyway….

A fool-proof way in answering questions regarding hot pursuit arrest, I think, after answering the question categorically (yes or no) is to first cite the two elements of a hot pursuit arrest:
A hot pursuit arrest under Rule 113 Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court has two elements:
1. an offense has just been committed
2. the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
then, we apply this to the facts of the case. For example:
Here, the crime was committed 6 days ago, clearly violating the first element of a hot pursuit arrest that a crime has just been committed. Further, the arresting officers merely relied on a tip from an informant, violating the second element that the arresting officers must base their assessment of probable cause on their personal knowledge.
Then we make the conclusion depending on the question.

And if we answer that the arrest was a hot pursuit arrest, I think it helps to add the element of urgency if applicable:
If the arresting officers had postponed the suspect’s arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have already fled the law.


But of course, there are a variety of ways that the question can present issues. Maybe the issue is on the “immediacy of time,” the “personal knowledge,” the “probable cause,” or a combination of some or all.

Luckily, Pestilos v. Generoso offers a framework to deal with this:
We simply answer the following questions:
1) An offense has just been committed (immediacy in point of time): has the crime just been committed when they were arrested?
2) Personal knowledge: did the arresting officer have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the petitioners committed the crime? or did he just depend on an informant?
3) Probable Cause: based on these facts and circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the petitioners’ arrest, would a reasonably discreet and prudent person believe that the crime was committed by the person sought to be arrested?

It also helps to look at jurisprudence to see what instances in the past has been accepted or rejected by the Supreme Court as a hot pursuit arrest:

1. Rejected (no immediacy, no personal knowledge)- The arrest happened 3 days after the crime. The arresting officers based their probable cause on 2 witnesses who identified the suspect.
–Posadas v. Ombudsman, 2000

2. Rejected (no personal knowledge, no probable cause) – Information was reported to the police from a person who stated that he was recruited by Burgos to join the NPA. The next day, the police arrested Burgos. “In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok’s verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained.”
–People v. Burgos, 1986

3. Rejected (no immediacy, no personal knowledge)- “the arrest of del Rosario did not comply with these requirements because he was arrested only a day after the commission of the crime and not immediately thereafter. Additionally, the arresting officers were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime. Hence, they had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed the offense. They became aware of del Rosario’s identity as the driver of the getaway tricycle only during the custodial investigation.”
–People v. del Rosario, 1999

4. Accepted- Information of a dead body arrived at 6:00 am. The arresting officer investigated the crime scene immediately. He learned from his investigation that a “motorcab” with side car number 0164 had stopped near the place where the deceased was found. His investigation likewise revealed that “the person responsible for the death of Efren Flores was a certain Abdul Tonog of Bacong, Negros Oriental” . Pat. Leguarda based his conclusion principally from the information given to him by one Liberato Solamillo . He was also informed by the girlfriend of Abdul Tonog’s co-accused, Allan Solamillo, that prior to the stabbing incident, “there were grudges between Efren Flores and Abdul Tonog.” He also found blood stains on the suspect’s pants. The key here is that the officer personally investigated and he did it on the same day the crime was committed.
–People v. Tonog, Jr., 1992

5. Accepted- After seeing the victim dead in the hospital, the arresting officers inspected the crime scene. They saw the murder weapons and heard the testimony of an eyewitness who identified the suspect. They arrested the suspect 3 hours after the crime was committed. They won’t have enough time to secure a warrant before the suspects can escape from the law.
–People v. Gerente, 1993

6. Accepted- A maid was kept as a “rape slave.” She finally mustered the courage to call her sister who then asked the help of the police. The police immediately went to the house where the maid was held captive. The victim-maid pointed at the suspect as the one who rapes her. “The personal knowledge of the arresting officers in the case at bar was culled from the information supplied by the victim herself who pointed to Alvario as the man who raped her at the time of his arrest.”
–People v. Alvario, 1997

7. Accepted- “a group held up the passengers in a jeepney and the policemen immediately responded to the report of the crime. One of the victims saw four persons walking towards Fort Bonifacio, one of whom was wearing his jacket. The victim pointed them to the policemen. When the group saw the policemen coming, they ran in different directions. The Court held that the arrest was valid.”
–People v. Acol, 1994

8. Accepted- “there was an initial report to the police concerning a robbery. A radio dispatch was then given to the arresting officers, who proceeded to Alden Street to verify the authenticity of the radio message. When they reached the place, they met with the complainants who initiated the report about the robbery. Upon the officers’ invitation, the victims joined them in conducting a search of the nearby area where the accused was spotted in the vicinity. Based on the reported statements of the complainants, he was identified as a logical suspect in the offense just committed. Hence, the arrest was held valid.”
–Cadua v. CA, 1999

9. Accepted- “the arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his alleged mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident with Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a different version of what transpired.”
–Pestilos v. Generoso 2014

So I guess it’s safe to say that the trend here for a hot pursuit arrest to be valid is: personal investigation, victim identifying the suspect, and immediacy of action. Of course, we can’t really set these as rules since every case is different. Let’s just always stick to the elements and the structure of how to answer questions above and use these example cases as a guide.

So that’s it. TO RECAP:

Rule 113 Sec. 5(a)
Elements of in flagrant delicto arrest
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.

Rule 113 Sec. 5(b)
Elements of a “hot pursuit” arrest
1. An offense has just been committed
2. the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
Bonus element (for me, to sweeten the pot):
Urgency- Postponement of the arrest until the officer can obtain a warrant would result in the suspects escaping the law

Guide:
We simply answer the following questions:
1) An offense has just been committed (immediacy in point of time): has the crime just been committed when they were arrested?
2) Personal knowledge: did the arresting officer have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the petitioners committed the crime? or did he just depend on an informant or third person?
3) Probable Cause: based on these facts and circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the petitioners’ arrest, would a reasonably discreet and prudent person believe that the crime was committed by the person sought to be arrested?

So the next question is: what happens if the warrantless arrest is invalid?

Effects of Invalid Warrantless Arrest

The invalidity of an arrest leads to several consequences among which are:
(a) the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused;
(b) criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest; and
(c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus rendering the evidence acquired as constitutionally inadmissible.
–Veridiano v. People, 2017, penned by Leonen

So, is all lost if a suspect is arrested unlawfully? Is he free from facing the consequences?

No, not really. His guilt or innocence will not be affected by the illegal arrest. In fact, he may not even be released.

Here’s why.

4. when the right is voluntarily waived

“Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.”
–People v. Codilla, 1993

This basically means that despite an invalid warrantless arrest or a defective warrant of arrest, the court is capable of assuming jurisdiction over the accused if he fails to object before he enters his plea. Any objection to the court’s jurisdiction is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any objection.

To illustrate, let’s say a suspect is arrested without a warrant while he was just sitting in his house. He did commit a crime, but it was done weeks ago. Clearly, the circumstances in this case does not allow any chance for a valid warrantless arrest. The correct procedure for the police would have been to acquire a warrant of arrest.

Anyway, now that he is arrested, he should question the validity of his arrest (usually through a writ of habeas corpus) before he enters his plea (during arraignment). If he does, then he must be released, and the arresting officers may be prosecuted for the crime of Arbitrary Detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person. But, this does not mean that he is acquitted for his crime (that would be absurd). He can still be arrested and detained again, or at least denied the right to be released, if a judge issues a valid warrant of arrest later on (Such is what happened with Paco Larranaga as can be observed in Larranaga v. CA, 1998).

So what can a person gain from being illegally arrested? Probably the best he can gain is that any incriminating evidence that the police seized during the unlawful arrest will be deemed inadmissible even if he fails to object to his invalid arrest. This is the exclusionary rule that we will discuss in our next post.

But, if the suspect does not question the validity of his arrest before he enters his plea, he waives his right to object. The reasoning behind this is stated in People v. Briones (1991):
“Immediately after their arrest, appellants Briones and Javier could have objected to the legality thereof due to the failure of the police officer to secure first a warrant for their arrest. Not only that, without having questioned the legality of their arrest, they even pleaded, on arraignment, to the information filed against them. Appellants’ acts constitute a clear waiver of their right against unlawful restraint of liberty. Besides, it would be impractical, if not ridiculous to order the court a quo to set the appellants free then issue a warrant for their arrest, and try them all over again when appellants themselves have waived their right to object to such irregularity and when their conviction is truly based on overwhelming evidence.“

In connection with this rule is the following rule on bail:
Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack or irregular preliminary investigation. – An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case.

In other words, posting of a bail bond will not bar the suspect from questioning the validity of his arrest. But, the requirement still stands that the objection to the illegal arrest should be done before entering his plea. This rule is important now probably because there have been a lot of old cases before that held “posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person, stop him from discussing the validity of his arrest.” Times have changed, I guess.

To Recap:

1. A person illegally arrested should object to his arrest before he enters his plea (arraignment).
2. Even if the arrest is illegal, the arrested person can still be detained, or re-arrested after release, if a valid warrant for his arrest is issued later on.
3. A person illegally arrested and detained can still post bail without waiving his right to object to the illegality of the arrest.
4. If the person fails to object to his unlawful arrest before arraignment, then he waives his right to object and it will be as if the arrest was legal in the first place (except for the part where the arresting officers will be punished and the evidence seized during the warrantless arrest will be inadmissible).

That’s it. We’ll discuss the exclusionary rule next time.