In criminal procedure, it is a general rule that an individual cannot be arrested, detained, or brought to the police station without a valid warrant of arrest issued by a judge after determining probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. However, there are exceptions to this rule specified enumerated in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
What are these instances where a person may be arrested without a warrant?
(a) In Flagrante Delicto – in this instance, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. For a warrantless arrest of a person caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, 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. Such in the case of People v. Pavia, the responding police officers verified through a small opening in the window and saw accused-appellants and his companions sniffing “shabu” to use the words of PO2 Bautista, the arresting officer. Clearly, accused-appellants were then and there committing a crime and the same was personally witnessed by the arresting officer. Hence, the police officers are not only authorized but are duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
(b) Hot Pursuit – Two elements must be established for a valid hot pursuit arrest. 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. As discussed in Pestilos v. Generoso, from the current phraseology of the rules on warrantless arrest, it appears that for purposes of Section 5(b), the following are the notable changes: first, the contemplated offense was qualified by the word “just,” connoting immediacy; and second, the warrantless arrest of a person sought to be arrested should be based on probable cause to be determined by the arresting officer based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. In People v. Gerente, the police apprehended Gerente approximately three hours after he and his accomplices had murdered the victim. After discovering the deceased Blace at the hospital and inspecting the crime scene, the police found the murder weapons: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block used to bludgeon the victim. Eyewitness informed the police of the crime and identified her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the perpetrators. Given the police’s firsthand knowledge of Blace’s violent death and the facts suggesting that Gerente and his accomplices were responsible, the arrest of Gerente without a warrant was legally justified. Delaying the arrest to secure a warrant would have allowed Gerente to evade capture, as his two accomplices did.
(c) Escaped Prisoner/Fugitive – 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), the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall undergo inquest proceeding conducted by a prosecutor to determine whether the person was lawfully arrested without a warrant and should remain detained, and if there is probable cause to charge him with an offense. If the inquest prosecutor finds probable cause, a complaint or information is filed in court. If not, the arrested person must be released immediately. If an inquest prosecutor is unavailable, the complaint can be filed directly with the court by the offended party or a peace officer using the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer.
A person arrested without a warrant may request for the conduct of a preliminary investigation and waive his rights under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code by signing a waiver in the presence of his counsel.
A preliminary investigation is a more comprehensive procedure to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to hold a person liable for a crime and proceed to trial. It involves gathering and reviewing evidence, and hearing both the complainant and the accused.
The signed waiver, upon requesting a preliminary investigation after a warrantless arrest, relinquishes the arrested person’s protected right under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and to question whether there has been a delay in delivering him to the proper authorities. Article 125 provides that an officer or employee shall be criminally liable under said provision if he or she shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: twelve(12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
A person arrested without a warrant may file for bail during the preliminary investigation or while the case is pending as a matter of right if the offense is not punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death.
Even during a valid warrantless arrest, the arresting officer must protect the individual’s constitutional rights and observe legal standard procedures. This includes identifying themselves as a law enforcement officer, informing the person of the cause of the arrest, informing the person of their right to remain silent and to have legal counsel preferably of his own choice, using reasonable force in making the arrest (Sec. 2, Rule 113 RCP), and promptly presenting the person to judicial authorities (Art. 125 RPC).