Sensibilidades de las condiciones de inyección alterna de vapor

Requisites for Issuance of a Valid Arrest Warrant

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.

In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall:

(1) Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) If he finds no probable cause, he may

disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.[Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)]

Existence of Probable Cause: 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. [Webb v. De Leon (1995)]

Determination of probable cause personally by the judge as to warrant of arrest:

(1) On the basis of the witnesses’ personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying to.

(2) The arrest warrant must describe particularly the person to be seized. (a) By stating the name of the person to

be arrested.

(b) If not known, then a “John Doe warrant” may be issued, with some descriptio personae that will enable the officer to identify the accused. John Doe Warrant: Warrants issued against 50 John Does, none of whom the witnesses could identify, were considered as “general warrants” and thus void. [Pangandaman v. Casar (1988)]

Requisites of a Valid Warrantless Arrest [Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules on Criminal Procedure]

(1) In flagrante delicto: When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense The person must be arrested after the offense has been committed and in the presence of a police officer. [People v. Mengote (1992)]

Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore a rebel may be arrested without a warrant at any time of the day or the night as he is deemed to be in the act of committing rebellion. [Umil v. Ramos (1991)]

Though kidnapping with serious illegal detention is deemed a continuing crime, it can be considered as such only when the deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one place to another. [Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons (1968)]

Buy-Bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid in flagrante arrest. The subsequent search of the person arrested and the premises within his immediate control is valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. [People v. Hindoy (2001)]

When not proper buy-bust: Instead of arresting the suspect after the sale in a buy-bust op, the officer returned to the police headquarters and filed his report. It was only in the evening that he, without warrant, arrested the suspect at his house where dried marijuana leaves were found and seized. This is unlawful arrest. [People v. Rodrigueza (1992)] (2) Hot Pursuit: 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

Requisites:

(a) Offense had just been committed; The person must be immediately arrested after the commission of the offense. [People v. Manlulu (1994)] (b) Person making the arrest has

probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge.

Note: There must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time between arrest and commission of crime, warrant of arrest must be secured. [Nachura]

Warrantless arrest of accused for selling marijuana 2 days after he escaped is invalid. [People v. Kimura (2004)]

The warrantless arrest only 3 hours after the killing was held valid since personal knowledge was established as to the fact of death and facts indicating that the accused killed the victim. [People v. Gerente (1993)]

Personal Knowledge: Experience of an officer which gives the idea that there is probable cause that the person caught is responsible. It has been ruled that “personal knowledge of facts” in arrests without a warrant must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. [Cadua v. Court of Appeals (1999)]

There is no personal knowledge when the commission of a crime and identity of the accused were merely furnished by an informant, or when the location of the firearm was given by the wife of the accused. It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. [People v. Burgos (1986)]

(c) Escaped Prisoners: 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

Additional Exceptions (Not in the Rules): (d) When the right is voluntarily waived

(estoppel).

Appellant is estopped from questioning the illegality of the arrest when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial. [People v. Salvatierra (1997)] Failure to raise the question of admissibility during the trial is waiver of the right to assert inadmissibility on appeal. [Manalili v. CA (1997)]

Scope of Waiver: Waiver is limited to the illegal arrest. It does not extend to

the search made as an incident thereto, or the subsequent seizure of evidence allegedly found during the search. [People v. Peralta (2004)]

(e) Violent insanity