RULE 113 – ARREST
A. Definition Definition - how made; when; time, method - who may arrest B. Warrantless Arrests (Sec. 5) a. in flagrante delicto rule . hot !ursuit rule c. "esca!e# rule d. "asconding# rule (sec. $%, !ar. $, rule &&') rocedure deli*ery to the nearest !olice station+!recinct Read: Read: Luz vs. People People,, 667 667 SCRA SCRA 421 Antiquera vs. People, People, 712 SCRA, SCRA, 12/11,21! 12/11,21! People vs. "asquez, 714 SCRA, 1/1#/214 Read: RA74!$ RA74!$ % &'e Ri('ts Ri('ts o) o) Persons Persons Arrested Arrested *n )la(rante deli+to Pulido SARAUM V. PEOPLE 781 SCRA, G.R. No., 205472, Janua! 25, 201" Reedial La- Criinal Pro+edure Arrest in la(rante 0eli+to *n arrest in )la(rante deli+to, t'e a++used is appre'ended at t'e ver oent 'e is +oittin( or atteptin( to +oit or 'as ust +oitted an o))ense in t'e presen+e o) t'e arrestin( o))i+er.3Saraum o))i+er.3Saraum was arrested during the commission of a crime, which instance does not reuire a warrant in accordance with Section 5(a), ule &&% &&% of the e*ised ules ules on riminal riminal rocedure. rocedure. /n arrest in )la(rante )la(rante deli+to, deli+to, the accused is a!!rehended at the *ery moment he is committing or attem!ting to commit or has committed an offense in the !resence of the arresting officer. 0o constitute a *alid in )la(rante deli+to arrest, two reuisites must concur (&) the !erson to e arrested must e1ecute an o*ert act indicating that he has 2ust committed, is actually committing, or is attem!ting to commit a crime; and ($) such o*ert act is done in the !resence or within the *iew of the arresting officer. Sae Sae Sae Sear+'es and Seizures Considerin( t'at Sarus arrest -as le(al, t'e sear+' and seizure t'at resulted )ro it -ere li5e-ise la-)ul. &'e various dru( parap'ernalia t'at t'e poli+e o))i+ers )ound )ound and seized in t'e s'ant are, t'ere)ore, t'ere)ore, adissile in eviden+e eviden+e )or 'avin( pro+eeded )ro a valid sear+' and seizure.30he seizure.30he *alid warrantless arrest ga*e the officers the right to search the shanty for o2ects relating to the crime sei3e the drug !ara!hernalia they found. /n the course of their lawful intrusion, they inad*ertently saw the *arious drug !ara!hernalia. As these items were !lainly *isile, the !olice officers were 2ustified in sei3ing them. onsidering that Saraum4s arrest was legal, the search and sei3ure that resulted from it were liewise lawful. 0he *arious drug !ara!hernalia that the !olice officers found and sei3ed in the shanty are, therefore, admissile in e*idence for ha*ing !roceeded from a *alid search and sei3ure. Since the confiscated drug !ara!hernalia are the *ery cor!us delicti of the crime charge, the ourt has no choice ut to sustain the 2udgment of con*iction.
70
Sae Sae otion to 8uas' &'e estalis'ed rule is t'at an a++used a e stopper )ro assailin( t'e le(alit o) 'is arrest i) 'e )ailed to ove )or t'e quas'in( o) t'e *n)oration a(ainst 'i e)ore 'is arrai(nent. 6 7*en if we consider the arrest as in*alid, Saraum is deemed to ha*e wai*ed any o2ection thereto when he did not raise the issue efore entering his !lea. "0he estalished rule is that an accused may e sto!!ed from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to mo*e for the uashing of the /nformation against him efore his arraignment. Any o2ection in*ol*ing the arrest or the !rocedure in the court4s acuisition of 2urisdiction o*er the !erson of an accused must e made efore he enters his !lea; otherwise the o2ection is deemed wai*ed.# /n this case, counsel for Saraum manifested its o2ection to the admission of the sei3ed drug !ara!hernalia, in*ol*ing illegal arrest and search, only during the formal offer of e*idence y the !rosecution. Reedial La- 9viden+e Presuption o) Re(ularit &'e testionies o) t'e poli+e o))i+ers -'o +ondu+ted t'e uust operation are (enerall a++orded )ull )ait' and +redit in vie- o) t'e presuption o) re(ularit in t'e per)oran+e o) o))i+ial duties and espe+iall so in t'e asen+e o) ill otive t'at +ould e attriuted to t'e. %0he defense failed to show any odious intent on the !art of the !olice officers to im!ute such a serious crime that would !ut in 2eo!ardy the life and lierty of an innocent !erson. Saraum4s mere denial cannot !re*ail o*er the !ositi*e and categorical identification and declaration s of the !olice officers. 0he defense of denial, frame-u!, or e1tortion, lie alii, has een in*arialy *iewed y the courts with disfa*our for it can easily e concocted and is a common and standard defense !loy in most cases in*ol*ing *iolation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As e*idence that is oth negati*e and selfser*ing, this defense cannot attain more crediility than the testimonies of !rosecution witness who testify clearly, !ro*iding therey !ositi*e e*idence on the *arious as!ects of the crime committed. 0o merit consideration, it has to e sustained y strong, clear, and con*incing e*idence, which Saraum failed to do for !resenting no corroorati*e e*idence. Sae Criinal Pro+edure Appeals Settled is t'e rule t'at unless soe )a+ts or +ir+ustan+es o) -ei('t and in)luen+e 'ave een overloo5ed or t'e si(ni)i+an+e -'i+' 'as een isinterpreted, t'e )indin(s and +on+lusion o) t'e trial +ourt on t'e +rediilit o) -itnesses are entitled to (reat respe+t and -ill not e distured e+ause it 'as t'e advanta(e o) 'earin( t'e -itnesses and oservin( t'eir deportent and anner o) testi)in( 6 0he rule finds an e*en more stringent a!!lication where said findings are sustained y the A as in this case. /n this case, the uantum of e*idence necessary to !ro*e Saraum4s guilt eyond reasonale dout had een sufficiently met since the !rosecution stood o n its own strength and did not rely on the weaness of the defense. 0he !rosecution was ale to o*ercome the constitutional right of the accused to e !resumed innocent until !ro*en guilty. #ACTS 8n August &9, $::, 8%
71
8n the other hand, the commission of the alleged defense was denied y Saraum wherein he alleged that he was !assing y ence, this !etition. $SSUE Whether or not Saraum4s arrest was *alid. %EL& 0he ourt held in the affirmati*e. Saraum4s arrest was made during the commission of a crime which does not reuire a warrant in accordance with Sec. 5(a), ule &&% of the e*ised ules on riminal rocedure. /n arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is a!!rehended at the *ery moment he is committing or attem!ting to commit or has 2ust committed an offense in the !resence of the arresting officer. 0o constitute a *alid in flagrante delicto arrest, two reuisites must concur (&) the !erson to e arrested must e1ecute an o*ert act indicating that he has 2ust committed, is actually committing, or is attem!ting to commit a crime; and ($) such o*ert act is done in the !resence or within the *iew of the arresting officer. /n this case, the arresting officers saw Saraum was holding a lighter, tin foil, and rolled tissue !a!er while they were in the course of arresting someody. 0his clearly showed the case of hot !ursuit of "ata#, who entered the house where Saraum was caught in !ossession of the illegal items. ?urther, the *alid warrantless arrest ga*e the officers the right to search the shanty for o2ects relating to the crime and sei3e the drug !ara!hernalia they found. 0hus, the !olice officers were 2ustified in sei3ing them. Since, the arrest was legal, then the search and sei3ure which resulted from such arrest were also lawful. ?urthermore, the court said that e*en if it considered the arrest as in*alid, Saraum is deemed to ha*e wai*ed any o2ection when he did not raise the issue efore entering his !lea. 0he estalished rule is that an accused may e sto!!ed from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to mo*e for the uashing of the information against him efore h is arraignment. /n this case, the uantum of e*idence necessary to !ro*e Saraum4s guilt eyond reasonale dout had een sufficiently met since the !rosecution stood on its own strength and did not rely on the weaness of the defense. Wherefore, !remises considered, the !etition is D7@/7D. 0he decision elated Se!temer , $:&& and esolution dated Decemer &=, $:&$ of the ourt of a!!eals in A-. 7B @o. :&&==, which sustained the 2udgement of con*iction rendered y the 0, Branch 59, eu ity, in riminal ase @o. BC-999%9, is A??/7D. ;arrantless Arrest/Sear+' and Seizures 8uillope G.R. No. 205'2", Ju(! 22, 2015 ALV$N COMERC$ANTE ) GON*ALES +. PEOPLE O# T%E P%$L$PP$NES Constitutional La- Criinal Pro+edure Sear+'es and Seizures Sear+' ;arrants Se+tion 2, Arti+le *** o) t'e Constitution andates t'at a sear+' and seizure ust e +arried out t'rou(' or on t'e stren(t' o) a udi+ial -arrant predi+ated upon t'e e
72
-arrant, su+' sear+' and seizure e+oes, as a (eneral rule, =unreasonale= -it'in t'e eanin( o) said +onstitutional provision. Section $, Article /// of the onstitution mandates that a search and sei3ure must e carried out through or on the strength of a 2udicial warrant !redicated u!on the e1istence of !roale cause; in the asence of such warrant, such search and sei3ure ecomes, as a general rule, EunreasonaleE within the meaning of said constitutional !ro*ision. 0o !rotect !eo!le from unreasonale searches and sei3ures, Section % ($), Article /// of the onstitution !ro*ides an e1clusionary rule which instructs that e*idence otained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonale searches and sei3ures are deemed tainted and should e e1cluded for eing the !ro*erial fruit of a !oisonous tree. /n other words, e*idence otained from unreasonale searches and sei3ures shall e inadmissile in e*idence for any !ur!ose in any !roceeding. Constitutional La- Criinal Pro+edure Arrests ;arrantless Arrests. or a -arrantless arrest under Se+tion # >a? to operate, t-o >2? eleents ust +on+ur, nael: >a? t'e person to e arrested ust e ? su+' overt a+t is done in t'e presen+e or -it'in t'e vie- o) t'e arrestin( o))i+er. 6 ?or a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to o!erate, two ($) elements must concur, namely (a) the !erson to e arrested must e1ecute an o*ert act indicating that he has 2ust committed, is actually committing, or is attem!ting to commit a crime; and ( ) such o*ert act is done in the !resence or within the *iew of the arresting officer. 8n the other hand, Section 5 () reuires for its a!!lication that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact 2ust een committed and the arresting officer had !ersonal nowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. /n oth instances, the officerFs !ersonal nowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is asolutely reuired. Cnder Section 5 (a), the officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Section (), he nows for a fact that a crime has 2ust een committed. Sae Sae Sear+'es and Seizures Stop and ris5 Sear+'es >&err Sear+'es? @orall, =stop and )ris5= sear+'es do not (ive t'e la- en)or+er an opportunit to +on)er -it' a ud(e to deterine proale +ause. *n Posadas v. Court o) Appeals, one o) t'e earliest +ases adoptin( t'e =stop and )ris5= do+trine in P'ilippine urispruden+e, t'is +ourt approowe*er, this should e alanced with the need to !rotect the !ri*acy of citi3ens in accordance with Article ///, Section $ of the onstitution. 0he alance lies in the conce!t of Esus!iciousnessE !resent where the !olice officer finds himself or herself in. 0his may e undoutedly ased on the e1!erience of the !olice officer. 71!erienced !olice officers ha*e !ersonal e1!erience dealing with criminals and criminal eha*ior. >ence, they should ha*e the aility to discern - ased on facts that they themsel*es oser*e - whether an indi*idual is acting in a sus!icious manner. learly, a asic criterion would e that the !olice officer, with his or her !ersonal nowledge, must oser*e the facts leading to the sus!icion of an illicit act. 1 1 1 1 @ormally, Esto! and frisE searches do not gi*e the law enforcer an o!!ortunity to confer with a 2udge to determine !roale cause. /n osadas *. ourt of A!!eals, one of the earliest cases ado!ting the Esto! and frisE doctrine in hili!!ine 2uris!rudence, this
73
court a!!ro1imated the sus!icious circumstances as !roale cause 0he !roale cause is that when the !etitioner acted sus!iciously and attem!ted to flee with the uri ag there was a !roale cause that he was concealing something illegal in the ag and it was the right and duty of the !olice officers to ins!ect the same. ?or warrantless searches, !roale cause was defined as Ea reasonale ground of sus!icion su!!orted y circumstances sufficiently strong in themsel*es to warrant a cautious man to elie*e that the !erson accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. #ACTS Agent adan of the @A80/S grou! and 8% alag were aoard a motorcycle, !atrolling the area at andaluyong ity. While they s!otted, at a distance of aout &: meters, two men - later identified as omerciante and Dasilla standing and showing Eim!ro!er and un!leasant mo*ements,E with one of them handing !lastic sachets to the other. 0hining that the sachets may contain shau, they immediately sto!!ed and a!!roached omerciante and Dasilla. 8% alag introduced himself as a !olice officer, arrested omerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated two !lastic sachets containing white crystalline sustance from them. A laoratory e1amination later confirmed that said sachets contained metham!hetamine hydrochloride or shau. After the !rosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a demurrer to e*idence, which was granted y the 0, thus his acuittal. >owe*er, due to omercianteFs failure to file his own demurrer to e*idence, the 0 considered his right to do so wai*ed and ordered him to !resent his e*idence. 0he 0 found that 8% alag conducted a *alid warrantless arrest on omerciante, which yielded two !lastic sachets containing s'au. 0he A affirmed omercianteFs con*iction. /t held that 8% alag had !roale cause to effect the warrantless arrest of omerciante, gi*en that the latter was committing a crime in )la(rante deli+to; $SSUE Whether the A correctly affirmed omercianteFs con*iction for *iolation of Section &&, Article // of A =&5. RUL$NG @o. 0he e1clusionary rule is not, howe*er, an asolute and rigid !roscri!tion. 8ne of the recogni3ed e1ce!tions estalished y 2uris!rudence is a search incident to a lawful arrest. /n this instance, the law reuires that there first e a lawful arrest efore a search can e made the !rocess cannot e re*ersed.$5 Section 5, ule &&% of the e*ised ules on riminal rocedure lays down the rules on lawful warrantless arrests, as follows S7. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A !eace officer or a !ri*ate !erson may, without a warrant, arrest a !erson (a) When, in his !resence, the !erson to e arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attem!ting to commit an offense; () When an offense has 2ust een committed and he has !roale cause to elie*e ased on !ersonal nowledge of facts or circumstances that the !erson to e arrested has committed it; and (c) When the !erson to e arrested is a !risoner who has esca!ed from a !enal estalishment or !lace where he is ser*ing final 2udgment or is tem!orarily confined while his case is !ending, or has esca!ed while eing transferred from o ne confinement to another. /n cases falling under !aragra!hs (a) and () ao*e, the !erson arrested without a warrant shall e forthwith deli*ered to the nearest !olice station or 2ail and shall e !roceeded against in accordance with Section 9 of ule &&$.
74
0he aforementioned !ro*ision !ro*ides three (%) instances when a warrantless arrest may e lawfully effected (a) arrest of a sus!ect in flagrante delicto; () arrest of a sus!ect where, ased on !ersonal nowledge of the arresting officer, there is !roale cause that said sus!ect was the !er!etrator of a crime which had 2ust een committed; (c) arrest of a !risoner who has esca!ed from custody ser*ing final 2udgment or tem!orarily confined during the !endency of his case or has esca!ed while eing transferred from one confinement to another. ?or a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to o!erate, two ($) elements must concur, namely (a) the !erson to e arrested must e1ecute an o*ert act indicating that he has 2ust committed, is actually committing, or is attem!ting to commit a crime; and () such o*ert act is done in the !resence or within the *iew of the arresting officer.$9 8n the other hand, Section 5 () reuires for its a!!lication that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact 2ust een committed and the arresting officer had !ersonal nowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it.$redarclaw 0he ourt also notes that no other o*ert act could e !ro!erly attriuted to omerciante as to rouse sus!icion in the mind of 8% alag that the former had 2ust committed, was committing, or was aout to commit a crime. Gerily, the acts of standing around with a com!anion and handing o*er something to the latter cannot in any way e considered criminal acts. /n fact, e*en if omerciante and his com!anion were showing Eim!ro!er and un!leasant mo*ementsE as !ut y 8% alag, the same would not ha*e een sufficient in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), ule &&% of the e*ised ules on riminal rocedure. 0hat his reasonale sus!icion olstered y (a) the fact that he had seen his fellow officers arrest !ersons in !ossession of shau; and () his trainings and seminars on illegal drugs when he was still assigned in the !ro*ince are insufficient to create a co nclusion that what he !ur!ortedly saw in omerciante was indeed shau. /n sum, there was neither a *alid warrantless arrest nor a *alid Esto! and frisE search made on omerciante. As such, the shau !ur!ortedly sei3ed from him is rendered inadmissile in e*idence for eing the !ro*erial fruit of the !oisonous tree. Since the confiscated shau is the *ery cor!us delicti of the crime charged, omerciante must necessarily e acuitted and e1onerated from all criminal liaility. C'e+5points Rairez
RO&EL LU* ! ONG , -//on-, + PEOPLE O# T%E P%$L$PP$NES, -on-n GR No. 197788, February 29, 2012 Criinal Pro+edure Arrests Land &ransportation and &ra))i+ Code >RA @o. 41!6, or t'e Land &ransportation and &ra))i+ Code, t'e (eneral pro+edure )or dealin( -it' a tra))i+ violation is not t'e arrest o) t'e o))ender, ut t'e +on)is+ation o) t'e drivers li+ense o) t'e latter. Arrest is the taing of a !erson into custody in order that he or she may e ound to answer for the commission of an offense. /t is effected y an actual restraint of the !erson to e arrested or y that !erson4s *oluntary sumission to the custody of the one maing the arrest. @either the a!!lication of actual force, manual touching of the ody, or !hysical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is reuired. /t is enough that there e an intention on the !art of one of the !arties to arrest the other, and that there e an intent on the other to sumit, under the elief and im!ression that sumission is necessary. Cnder A '&%, or the land 0rans!ortation and 0raffic ode, the general !rocedure for dealing with a traffic *iolation is not the arrest of the offender, ut he confiscation of the dri*er4s license of the latter S70/8@ $=. Con)is+ation o) 0rivers Li+ense.-
75
of local traffic rules and regulations not contrary to any !ro*isions of this Act, confiscate the license of the dri*er concerned and issue a recei!t !rescried and issued y the Bureau therefor which shall authori3e the dri*er to o!erate a motor *ehicle for a !eriod not e1ceeding se*enty-two hours from time and date of issue of said recei!t. Sae Sae Sae Sae Pro+edure ein( Bserved in la((in( 0o-n "e'i+les durin( t'e Condu+t o) C'e+5points. 0he hili!!ine @ational olice (@) 8!erations anual !ro*ides the following !rocedure for flagging down *ehicles during the onduct of hec!oints S70/8@ 9. Pro+edure in la((in( 0o-n or A++ostin( "e'i+les ;'ile in oile Car. 0his rule is a general conce!t and will not a!!ly in hot !ursuit o!erations. 0he moile car crew shall undertae the following, when a!!licale 1 1 1 m. /f it concerns traffic *iolations, immediately issue a 0raffic itation 0icet (00) or 0raffic Giolation e!ort (0G). @e*er indulge in !rolonged, unnecessary con*ersation or argument with the dri*er or any of the *ehicle4s occu!ants. Sae Sae Sae Sae Custodial *nterro(ation &'e roadside questionin( o) a otorist does not )all under t'e +ustodial interro(ation, nor +an it e +onsidered a )oral arrest. /n er5eer v. +Cart, the Cnited States (CS) Su!reme ourt discussed at length whether the roadside uestioning of a motorist detained !ursuant to aroutine sto! should e considered custodial interrogation, nor can it e considered a formal arrest, y *irtue of the nature of the uestioning, the e1!ectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the !rocedure is conducted. Sae Sae Sae Sae At t'e tie a person is arrested, it s'all e t'e dut o) t'e arrestin( o))i+er to in)or t'e latter o) t'e reason )or t'e arrest and ust s'o- t'at person t'e -arrant o) arrest, i) an. 0his ourt has held that at the time a !erson is arrested, it shall e the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that !erson the warrant of arrest, if any. ersons shall e informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might mae could e use against them. /t may also e noted that in this case, these constitutional reuirements were com!lied with y the !olice officers a)ter !etitioner had een arrested for illegal !ossession of dangerous drugs. Sae Sae Sae Sae iranda 0o+trine *n er5eer vs. +Cart, 46$ S 42 >1D$4?, t'e S Court noted t'at t'e iranda ;arnin(s ust also e (iven to a person appre'ended due to a tra))i+ violation. % /n er5eer, the CS ourt also noted that the iranda Warnings must also e gi*en to a !erson a!!rehended due to a traffic *iolation 0he !ur!oses of the safeguards !rescried y the iranda are to ensure that the !olice do not coerce or tric ca!ti*e sus!ects into confessing, to relie*e the "inherently com!elling !ressures# generated y the custodial setting itself, "which wor to undermine the indi*idual4s will to resist,# and as much as !ossile to free courts from the tas of scrutini3ing indi*idual cases to try to determine, after the fact, whether !articular confessions were *oluntary. 0hose !ur!oses are im!licated as much y in-custody uestioning of !ersons sus!ected of misdemeanors as they are y uestioning of !ersons sus!ected of felonies. /t if were true that !etitioner was already deemed "arrested# when he was flagged down for a traffic *iolation and while he was waiting for his ticet, then there would ha*e een no need for him to e arrested for a second time 6 after the !olice officers allegedly disco*ered the drugs 6 as he was already in their custody. Sae Sae Sae Sae ;arrantless Sear+'es *nstan+es ;'en a ;arrantless Sear+' is allo-ed. % 0he following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed (i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of e*idence in "!lain *iew#; (iii) search of mo*ing *ehicle; (i*) consented warrantless search; (*) customs search; (*i) a "sto! and fris# search; and (*ii) e1igent and emergency circumstances. @one of the ao*e-mentioned instances, es!ecially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are a!!licale to this case.
76
Sae Sae Sae Sae Sae ;'et'er +onsent to t'e sear+' -as in )a+t voluntar is a question o) )a+t to e deterined )ro t'e totalit o) all +ir+ustan+es. % Whether consent to the search was in fact *oluntary is a uestion of fact to e determined from the totality of all circumstances. ele*ant to this determination are the following characteristics of the !erson gi*ing consent and the en*ironment in which consent is gi*en (&) the age of the defendant; ($) whether the defendant was in a !ulic or a secluded location; (%) whether the defendant o2ected to the search or !assi*ely looed on; (') the education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the !resence of coerci*e !olice !rocedures; () the defendant4s elief that no incriminating e*idence would e found; (9) the nature of the !olice uestioning; () the en*ironment in which the uestioning too !lace; (=) the !ossily *ulnerale su2ecti*e state of the !erson consenting. /t is the State that has the urden of !ro*ing, y clear and !ositi*e testimony, that the necessary consent was otained, and was freely and *oluntarily gi*en. /n this case, all that was alleged was that !etitioner was alone at the !olice station at three in the morning, accom!anied y se*eral !olice officers. 0hese circumstances weigh hea*ily against a finding of *alid consent to a warrantless search. Sae Sae Sae Sae Stop and )ris5 &'e stop and )ris5 is erel a liited prote+tive sear+' o) outer +lot'in( )or -eapons. % @either does the search ualify under the "sto! and fris# rule. While the rule normally a!!lies when a !olice officer oser*es sus!icious or unusual conduct, which may lead him to elie*e that a criminal act may e afoot, the sto! and fris is merely a limited !rotecti*e search of outer clothing for wea!ons. Sae Sae Sae Sae ;arrantless Sear+' /n Hnowles *. /owa, the CS Su!reme ourt held that when a !olice officer sto!s a !erson for s!eeding and corres!ondingly issues a citation instead of arresting the latter, this !rocedure does not authori3e the officer to conduct a full search of the car. 0he ourt therein held that there was no 2ustification for a full-lown search when the officer does not arrest the motorist. /nstead, !olice officers may only conduct minimal instructions, such as ordering the motorist to alight from the car or doing a !atdown. #ACTS 8n arch &:, $::% at around %:: o4cloc in the morning, 8$ 7mmanuel <. Alte3a, who was then assigned at Su-Station & of @aga ity olice Station as a traffic enforcer saw the accused, odel
77
!erson of two !lastic sachets later found to contain s'au. 0he 0 also found his defense of frame-u! and e1tortion to e wea, self-ser*ing and unsustantiated. 0he a!!eal to the A only affirmed the 04s Decision. 0hus, this !etition for re*iew. $uWhether or not the arrest was *alid. %-( 0here was no *alid arrest of !etitioner. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic *iolation, he was not, ipso )a+to and solely for this reason, arrested. Arrest is the taing of a !erson into custody in order that he or she may e ound to answer for the commission of an offense, it is effected y an actual restraint of the !erson to e arrested or y that !erson4s *oluntary sumission to the custody of the one maing the arrest. @either the a!!lication of actual force, manual touching of the ody, or !hysical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is reuired. /t is enough that there e an intention on the !art of one of the !arties to arrest the other, and that there e an intent on the !art of the other to sumit, under the elief and im!ression that sumission is necessary. Cnder .A. '&%, or the ence, it was only for the sae of con*enience that they were waiting there. 0here was no intention to tae !etitioner into custody.
78
*n )la(rante 0eli+to Santos G-o- An/u-a ! Co- +. P-o(- o - P/(//n- 6G.R. No. 180""1 &--9- 11, 2013: Reedial La- Criinal Pro+edure Arrests ;arrantless Arrests Se+tion #>a?, Rule 11! o) t'e Rules o) Criinal Pro+edure provides t'at a Epea+e o))i+er or a private person a, -it'out a -arrant, arrest a person -'en, in 'is presen+e, t'e person to e arrested 'as +oitted, is a+tuall +oittin(, or is atteptin( to +oit an o))ense.F 6Section 5(a), ule &&% of the ules of riminal rocedure !ro*ides that a "!eace officer or a !ri*ate !erson may, without a warrant, arrest a !erson when, in his !resence, the !erson to e arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attem!ting to commit an offense.# 0his is an arrest in )la(rante deli+to. 0he o*ert act constituting the crime is done in the !resence or within the *iew of the arresting officer. Sae Sae Sear+'es and Seizures Considerin( t'at 'is arrest -as ille(al, t'e sear+' and seizure t'at resulted )ro it -as li5e-ise ille(al. Consequentl, t'e various dru( parap'ernalia t'at t'e poli+e o))i+ers alle(edl )ound in t'e 'ouse and seized are inadissile, 'avin( pro+eeded )ro an invalid sear+' and seizure. 6learly, no crime was !lainly e1!osed to the *iew of the arresting officers that authori3ed the arrest of accused Antiuera without warrant under the ao*e-mentioned rule. onsidering that his arrest was illegal, the search and sei3ure that resulted from it was liewise illegal. onseuently, the *arious drug !ara!hernalia that the !olice officers allegedly found in the house and sei3ed are inadmissile, ha*ing !roceeded from an in*alid search and sei3ure. Since the confiscated drug !ara!hernalia is the *ery +orpus deli+ti of the crime charged, the ourt has no choice ut to acuit the accused. 8ne final note. 0he failure of the accused to o2ect to the irregularity of his arrest y itself is not enough to sustain his con*iction. A wai*er of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a wai*er of the inadmissiility of e*idence sei3ed during the illegal warrantless arrest. #a 8n && ?eruary $::', 8& regorio ecio, 8&
79
8n a!!eal, the ourt of A!!eals affirmed the decision of the 0. $u-; Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Antiuera and ru3 was 2ustified under Section 5, ule &&% of the ules of riminal rocedure. %-( @o. 0he warrantless arrest of Antiuera and ru3 was not 2ustified under Section 5, ule &&% of the ules of riminal rocedure. Cnder the said !ro*ision, a "!eace officer or a !ri*ate !erson may, without a warrant, arrest a !erson when, in his !resence, the !erson to e arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attem!ting to commit an offense.# 0his is an arrest in )la(rante deli+to, where the o*ert act constituting the crime is done in the !resence or within the *iew of the arresting officer. 0he Su!reme ourt found that the circumstances in the case at ar do not constitute an arrest made in )la(rante deli+to. 0he !olice officers themsel*es claim that they were alerted when they saw two unidentified men rush out of a house. 0his made them sus!ect that a crime had een committed. >owe*er, instead of running after the two fleeing men, what the !olice officers did was to go to the house where the two men came from. 7*en as they !eeed through the !artially o!ened door of the house, they saw no acti*ity that warranted their entering into it. 0hus, it was a!!arent that no crime was !lainly e1!osed to the *iew of the arresting officers that authori3ed their arrest o f Antiuera and ru3. onsidering that the arrest was illegal, it also follows that the search and sei3ure which resulted from it was illegal and that the drug !ara!hernalia allegedly found inside the house were inadmissile as e*idence. %#uina"!o P-o(- + Vau-< G.R. 200304 Janua! 15, 2014 #ACTS A which affirmed the 2oint decision of 0 in a consolidated case, con*icting the a!!ellant Donald Gasue3 of the crimes of illegal sale and !ossession of regulated drugs. /nitially the case of illegal !ossession of drugs was raffled ut u!on motion it was consolidated with the case of illegal sale of drugs. 8n arraignment, the a!!ellant !leaded not guilty to oth charges. 0he !re-trial conference of the cases was held, ut the same was terminated without the !arties entering into any sti!ulation of facts. During the trial of the !rosecution stated the e*ents. 0here was a confidential informant re!orted to 8$ 0ramulo aout the illegal drug acti*ities. ?a2ardo organi3ed a uy-ust team and during the o!eration Ga3ue3 was arrested. 0 con*icted the a!!ellant of the crimes charged. 0he 0 ga*e more credence to the !rosecution4s e*idence gi*en that the !resum!tion of regularity in the !erformance of official duty on the !art of the !olice officers was not o*ercome. 8n a!!eal the ourt of A!!eals affirmed the con*iction of the a!!ellant. >e argues that the !olice officers did not ha*e a search warrant or a warrant of arrest at the time he was arrested. 0his occurred des!ite the fact that the !olice officers allegedly had am!le time to secure a warrant of arrest against him. /nasmuch as his arrest was illegal, the a!!ellant a*ers that the e*idence otained as a result thereof was inadmissile in court.
$SSUE Whether or not the a!!ellant may assail the *alidity of arrest
80
%EL& At the outset, the ourt rules that the a!!ellant can no longer assail the *alidity of his arrest. $e reiterated in eo!le *. 0am!is that any o2ection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must e made efore the accused enter his !lea on arraignment. >a*ing failed to mo*e for the uashing of the information against them efore their arraignment, a!!ellants are now esto!!ed from uestioning the legality of their arrest. Any irregularity was cured u!on their *oluntary sumission to the trial court4s 2urisdiction. 0he fact of the matter is that the a!!ellant was caught in fagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an underco*er !olice officer in a uy-ust o!eration. >is arrest, thus, falls within the amit of Section 5(a) ule &&% of the ules on riminal rocedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful. >a*ing estalished the *alidity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the ourt holds that the warrantless sei3ure of the illegal drugs from the a!!ellant is liewise *alid
81
