Arrest

Legality of Arrests, Search incidental to a lawful arrest, Warrantless arrest and Warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto or in hot pursuit 

Legality of –– An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment; any objection involving the 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 vs. Bringcula, G.R. No. 226400, Jan. 24, 2018)

Search incidental to a lawful arrest –– In order to deem as valid a consensual search, it is required that the police authorities expressly ask, and in no uncertain terms, obtain the consent of the accused to be searched and the consent thereof established by clear and positive proof, which were not shown in this case. (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 229380, June 06, 2018)

Warrantless arrest –– A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant; with respect to the latter, the parameters of Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should – as a general rule – be complied with; this provision identifies three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 229380, June 06, 2018)

––      In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Sec. 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) 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 (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer; on the other hand, Sec. 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it; in both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is essential; absent any overt act showing the commission of a crime, the warrantless arrest is rendered invalid, as in a case where a person was apprehended for merely carrying a bag and traveling aboard a jeepney without acting suspiciously; People v. Racho, cited. (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 229380, June 06, 2018)

––      Neither has the prosecution established the conditions set forth in Sec. 5 (b), Rule 113, particularly, that the arresting officer had personal knowledge of any fact or circumstance indicating that the accused had just committed a crime; “personal knowledge” is determined from the testimony of the witnesses that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed by the accused; as ruled by the Court, “a hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest; law enforcers must have personal knowledge of facts, based on their observation, that the person sought to be arrested has just committed a crime”; in this case, records failed to show that the police officer had any personal knowledge that a crime had been committed by the accused. (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 229380, June 06, 2018)

––      The Court finds that no lawful arrest was made on the accused; as no other overt act could be properly attributed to the accused as to rouse suspicion in the mind of the police officer that she had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime, the arrest is bereft of any legal basis; as case law demonstrates, the act of walking while reeking of liquor per se cannot be considered a criminal act. (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 229380, June 06, 2018)

Warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto or in hot pursuit –– Two requisites must concur: (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; on the other hand, the elements of an arrest effected in hot pursuit under par. (b) of Sec. 5 (arrest effected in hot pursuit) are: first, an offense has just been committed; and second, 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; warrantless arrests are mere exceptions to the constitutional right of a person against unreasonable searches and seizures, thus, they must be strictly construed against the government and its agents. (People vs. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225, April 04, 2018)

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines - Case Index