Polytechnic University of the
Philippines
College of Law
ENGL 3293
Composition Writing with Editing
Techniques
THE ART OF CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF
A WARRANTLESS ARREST
Submitted by:
Johnnyvel S. Sombilon
Juris Doctor Student
Submitted to:
Prof. John Philip Cainoy
THE ART OF CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF
A WARRANTLESS ARREST
Johnnyvel S.
Sombilon
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II.
BODY 4
A. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM/ ISSUE 4
III.
CONCLUSION 5
BIBLIOGRAPHY 10
THE ART OF CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF
A WARRANTLESS ARREST
Johnnyvel S.
Sombilon
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays,
there are several instances that persons are arrested and detained without any
warrant. This article aims to determine whether or not the arrest without a
warrant is lawful. If not, what is the recourse of a person unlawfully
arrested?
The
1987 Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.[1].
The same also enshrines and protects every person’s right, in this wise:
“The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.[2]”
While the rationale for warrantless arrests was
enunciated in the case of Valmonte v. De Villa[3], where
the Supreme Court held that:
“To hold that no
criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens
of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent,
at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of
criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.”
Under
three circumstances[4], a peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person also known as “citizen’s
arrest”:
(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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
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 temporarily confined while his case
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b)
hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
II. BODY
Supreme Court Justice Panganiban stated in his
concurring opinion in People v. Doria[5]:
While the law enforcers may not
actually witness the execution of acts constituting the offense, they must have
direct knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission. They should
know for a fact that a crime was committed. And they must also perceive acts
exhibited by the person to be arrested, indicating that he perpetrated the
crime. Again, mere intelligence information that the suspect committed the
crime will not suffice. The arresting officers themselves must have personal
knowledge of facts showing that the suspect performed the criminal act.
Personal knowledge means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion,
based on actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing
the crime.
To further illustrate, I have formulated a scenario
where a certain person was arrested without a warrant, as follows:
On
04 May 2017, at around 7 PM, Mr. Juan Dela Cruz, was arrested by the QCPD
Police Officers without a warrant at a Gasoline Station, in Quezon City. After
the said arrest, Mr. Dela Cruz was brought to the Investigation and Detection
Management Department (IDMD) of Camp Crame in Quezon City, for an
investigation. On the next day following the arrest, Mr. Dela Cruz was subjected
into inquest proceedings before a prosecutor. Thereat, Mr. Dela Cruz was shown
a sworn complaint by certain Elena Magdalena accusing him of raping the latter
on 01 May 2017.
If
the arrested person, Mr. Dela Cruz in this case, secured your services as his
counsel under such circumstance, how would you be able to protect his rights?
A. STATEMENT OF
THE PROBLEM/ ISSUE:
Whether
or not Mr. Juan Dela Cruz’s warrantless arrest valid or unlawful in connection
to the rape he allegedly committed three (3) days before the arrest.
III. CONCLUSION
A
warrantless arrest is lawful if it meets the requirements or circumstances as
established or provided for in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, to
wit:
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
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.
In
cases falling under
paragraphs (a) and
(b) above, the
person arrested without a
warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station
or jail and
shall be proceeded
against in accordance with
section 7 of Rule 112.
A warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) has described
as one “in flagrante delecto”. while
that under Section 5 (b) has been denominated as “hot pursuit” arrest.
In
Pestilos v. Generoso[6],
the Supreme Court underscored that in a “hot pursuit” arrest, the existence of
a “probable cause” is the objectifier or determinant whether the person to be
arrested has committed a crime.
Consequently,
in determining the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest, the compliance
with the requirements set under 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court must be
observed. Specifically, the requirement of immediacy; the peace officer’s
knowledge of facts or circumstances; and lastly, the propriety of the
determination of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested committed
a crime.
In
the case at bar, all mentioned requisite for a lawful warrantless arrest were
not satisfied by the arresting Police Officers. Mr. Dela Cruz was arrested
without any warrant by the QCPD Police Officers three (3) days after the crime
of rape was allegedly committed by Mr. Dela Cruz against Ms. Magdalena.
In
People v. de Rosario[7],
the court held that the requirement that an offense has just been committed
means that there must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the
offense was committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an appreciable
lapse if time between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of
arrest must be secured.
The
Supreme Court held that the arrest of Mr. del Rosario did not comply with these
requirements because he was arrested 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.
In
People v. Cendana[8], the accused was arrested
one (1) day after the killing of the victim and only on the basis of
information obtained from unnamed sources. The unlawful arrest was held
invalid.
In Posadas v. Ombudsman[9], the
killing of Dennis Venturina happened on December 8, 1994. It was only on
December 11, 1994 that Chancellor Posadas requested the NBI’s assistance. On
the basis of the supposed identification of two (2) witnesses, the NBI
attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag three (3) days
after the commission of the crime. With this set of facts, it cannot be said
that the officers have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the persons
sought to be arrested committed the crime. Hence, the Court invalidated the
warrantless arrest.
In
Cadua v. Court of Appeals[10],
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.
In People v. Mengote[11],
the Supreme Court held that the accused acts of merely “looking from side to
side” and “holding his abdomen,” do not constitute enough basis to implement a
warrantless arrest. There was apparently no offense that had just been
committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempted by the
accused in the presence of the arresting officers.In this case, the Solicitor
General argued that the actual existence of an offense was not necessary as long
as Mengote’s acts “created a reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting
officers and induced in them the belief that an offense had been committed and
that the accused-appellant had committed it.” The Court shot down this argument
stating that no offense could possibly have been suggested by a person “looking
from side to side” and “holding his abdomen” and in a place not exactly
forsaken.
In the same case, the Court further said in this
wise:
“It would be a sad day, indeed, if
any person could be summarily arrested and searched just because he is holding
his abdomen, even if it be possibly because of a stomach-ache, or if a peace
officer-could clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty look on suspicion
that he may have committed a criminal act or is actually committing or
attempting it. This simply cannot be done in a free society. This is not a
police state where order is exalted over liberty or, worse, personal malice on
the part of the arresting officer may be justified in the name of security.”
Based
on the foregoing discussions, it appears that the Supreme Court’s appreciation
of the elements that “the offense has just been committed” and ‘’personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed
it” depended on the particular circumstances of the case.
However, we note that the element of ‘’personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances” under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires clarification.
As defined, “circumstances are attendant or
accompanying facts, events or conditions.”[12]
Circumstances may pertain to events or actions within the actual perception,
personal evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of the
crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone actually
fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal
evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine
the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has
committed the crime. However, the determination of probable cause and the
gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the
commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of immediacy.
In other words, the clincher in the element of “personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances” is the required element of immediacy
within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered. This required
time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have
gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time
frame. This guarantees that the police officers would have no time to base
their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances obtained after an
exhaustive investigation.
The reason for the element of the immediacy is that
as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the
pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected
to external factors, interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the
element of immediacy imposed under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, the police officer’s determination of probable cause
would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered
as they were within a very limited period of time. The same provision adds
another safeguard with the requirement of probable cause as the standard for
evaluating these facts of circumstances before the police officer could effect
a valid warrantless arrest.
There
is big relevance to the subject case of Mr. Dela Cruz to the abovementioned
cases where warrantless arrests are held invalid by the Supreme Court.
With
all the gathered information, I find taint of impropriety in arresting Mr. Dela
Cruz without a warrant 3 days after the alleged commission of the crime of
rape. I am persuaded by the gathered pieces of evidence are clear and
convincing proof to conclude that the former was unlawfully arrest.
Evidently,
his constitutionally-guaranteed right were violated by the Police Officers who
detained him without a warrant.
In light of the discussion above on the developments
of Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Supreme
Court’s jurisprudence on the matter, the following must be present for a valid
warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been just committed; and 2) the
arresting officer’s exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of
probable cause to be determined from the facts and circumstances within his
personal knowledge. The requirement of the existence of probable cause
objectifies the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes of
compliance with the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests.
The issue of warrantless arrest arises daily all
over the country and embattles every lawyers as well as ordinary citizens. With
all the discussions of the requisite of a lawful warrantless arrest, I hope
that upon learning the art of challenging its validity or lawfulness is but one
of the key to win every legal battle.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Phil. Const. (1987), Art. III, Sec. 1
2.
Phil. Const. (1987), Art. III, Sec. 2
3.
Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989
4.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
5.
People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999
6.
Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014
7.
People v. de Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999
8.
People v. Cendana, G.R. No. 84715, October 17, 1990
9.
Posadas v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000
10.
Cadua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123123, August 19, 1999
11.
People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992
12.
Black, H. C., (1323) Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.
[1] Phil.
Const. (1987), Art. III, Sec. 1
[2] Phil.
Const. (1987), Art. III, Sec. 2
[3] G.R.
No. 83988, September 29, 1989
[4] Section
5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
[5] G.R.
No. 125299 , January 22, 1999
[6] G.R.
No. 182601, November 10, 2014
[7] G.R.
No. 127755, April 14, 1999
[8] G.R.
No. 84715, October 17, 1990
[9]
G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000
[10]
G.R. No. 123123, August 19, 1999
[11] G.R.
No. 87059, June 22, 1992
[12] Black's
Law Dictionary,5th Ed., 1323
