ARREST

SEARCH
SEIZURE
ARREST
• It is the taking of a person into custody in
order that he may be bound to answer for
the commission of an offense.
Elements:
1. Taking of person into custody
2. Answer for the commission of an
offense

• EMPHASIS: Article 124,125,126, RPC

• No violence or unnecessary force shall be used
in making an arrest, and the person to be
arrested shall not be subjected to any greater
restraint than what is necessary under the
circumstances.

• As a general rule, arrests can be made on any

day of the week and at any time of the day or
night.
• NOTE: All arrests should be made only on the
basis of a valid Warrant of Arrest issued by a
competent authority, except in instances where
the law allows warrantless arrest.

• It is made by an actual restraint of a person to

be arrested, or by his/her submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest.
METHODS OF ARREST

By virtue of a Warrant of Arrest

By virtue of Warrantless Arrest
 • Warrant of Arrest
• It is an order in writing, issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines, signed by the judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding him/her to
arrest a person designated and take him into
custody of the law in order that he/she may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
• Requisites:
• Probable cause- means such facts and
circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the
warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce
a cautious man to rely on them and act in
pursuance thereof.
The head of the office to whom the
warrant of arrest has been delivered for
implementation shall cause the warrant
to be implemented within ten (10) days
from receipt.
• Within ten (10) days after the expiration of
such period, the police officer to whom it was
assigned for implementation shall make a
report to the judge who issued the warrant and
in case of his failure to implement the same,
shall state the reasons thereof.
• Only judges are authorized to issue
Warrants of Arrest.
• Exception: A warrant of arrest may be issued
by administrative authorities but only for the
purpose of carrying out a final finding of a
violation of law and cannot be made for the
purpose of investigation.
Harvey vs Santiago, - where the court upheld the validity of the
arrest of pedophiles on orders of the CID commissioner
Santiago because there was probable cause, occasioned by
months of surveillance effected by agents of the suspected
pedophiles. The requirements that probable cause is to be
determined only by a judge does not extend to deportation
cases which are not criminal but administrative in nature. The
existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizures of
the photo negatives, photographs and posters without a warrant.
Furthermore, petitioner was found with young boys in their
respective rooms and other circumstances. The CID agents had
reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had committed
“pedophilia” which though not punished under the RPC us a
behavior offensive to public morals and violative of the declared
policy of the state to promote and protect the physical, moral,
spiritual and social well being of our youth.
 Procedures in Serving of Warrant of Arrest:

(1) Verify the validity of the warrant and request for an

authenticated copy from the issuing court;
(2) In serving the warrant, the police officer should
introduce himself and show proper identification;
(3) Make a manifestation of authority against the
person to be arrested;
(4) If refused entry, the police officer may break into
any residence, office, building, and other structure
where the person to be arrested is in or is reasonably
believed to be in, after announcing his purpose;
• (5) The police officer need not have a copy of the
warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest. If
the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be
shown to the arrested person as soon as possible;
• (6) Secure the person to be arrested and use
handcuffs for the protection of the arresting officer,
other individuals or the arrested person himself;
• (7) Conduct thorough search for weapons and other
illegal materials on the person arrested and
surroundings within his immediate control;
• (8) Inform the person to be arrested of his rights
under the law (i.e. Miranda Warning and Anti-
torture Warning);
(9) No unnecessary force shall be used in
making an arrest;
(10) Confiscated evidence shall be properly
documented with the chain of custody of
evidence duly and clearly established;
(11) Bring the arrested person to the Police
Station for documentation;
(12) Make a Return of Warrant to the court of
origin; and
(13) Deliver the arrested person to jail/prison
upon the issuance of a commitment order of the
court.
 The following are immune from arrest:

(1) A Senator or Member of the House of the

Representatives while Congress is in session
for an offense punishable by not more than six
years of imprisonment; and
(2) Diplomatic Agents, Under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
 By Virtue of Warrantless Arrest

A Warrant of Arrest is no longer needed if the

accused is already under detention. An Order
of Commitment is issued by the judge in lieu of
the Warrant of Arrest.
Instances of
Warrantless
Arrest
 • In Flagrante Delicto
• 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;
 HOT PURSUIT

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;
• “The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours
after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They
saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the
scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a
piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers
had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna
Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers.
Under those circumstances, since the policemen had
personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of
facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him,
they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they
had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant,
he would have fled the law as his two companions did.
In Umil vs. Ramos, the arrest of the accused without a
warrant was effected one (1) day after he had shot to
death two Capcom soldiers. The arrest was held lawful
by this Court upon the rationale stated by us in People
vs. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221, 228, thus:
"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."
 Escapee

c. 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 area to another;
 • Other instances of Warrantless Arrest

d. Where the accused released on bail

attempts to leave the country without court
permission;
e. Violation of conditional pardon, punishable
under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code as
a case of evasion of service of sentence; and
f. Arrest following a Deportation Proceeding by
the Immigration Commissioner against illegal
and undesirable aliens.
 Authority of the Arresting Officer when
Making an Arrest
a. Police officer may summon assistance – A police officer making
a lawful arrest may verbally summon as many persons as he
deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest.
b. Right of a police officer to break into building or enclosure – A
police officer in order to make an arrest, with or without warrant,
may break into a building or enclosure where the person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused
admittance thereto after announcing his authority and purpose.
c. Right to break out from building or enclosure – Whenever a
police officer has entered the building or enclosure to make an
arrest, he may break out therefrom, when necessary, to liberate
himself.
d. Arrest after escape or rescue – If a person
lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any
person may immediately pursue to retake him
without a warrant at any time and in any place
within the Philippines.
 When to make
Warrantless Arrest
(1) Freeze or restrain the suspect/s;
(2) Make proper introduction as to identity and authority to arrest;
(3) Inform the arrested person of the circumstances of his arrest
and recite the Miranda Warning and Anti-torture Warning to him;
(4) Secure the person to be arrested and use handcuffs for the
protection of the arresting officer, other individuals or the arrested
person himself;
(5) Conduct thorough search for weapons and other illegal
materials on the person arrested and surroundings within his
immediate control;
(6) Confiscated evidence shall be properly documented with the
chain of custody of evidence duly and clearly established;
(7) No unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest; and
(8) Bring the arrested person to the Police Station for further
investigation and disposition.
 

Duties of the Arresting

Officer
a. It shall be the duty of the police officer
implementing the Warrant of Arrest to deliver the
arrested person without delay to the nearest Police
Station or jail to record the fact of the arrest;

b. At the time of the arrest, it shall be the duty of the

arresting officer to inform the person arrested of the
cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant had
been issued for his arrest. The arresting officer need
not have the warrant in his possession at the time of
the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so
requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon
as possible;
c. When women or children are among the arrested
suspect/s, the arresting officer shall task the Women’s
and Children’s Protection Desks (WCPD) officer or a
policewoman who is familiar with women and children
protection desk duties to conduct the pat-down search;

d. In case of arrest without a warrant, it shall be the

duty of the arresting officer to inform the person to be
arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest
except when he flees or forcibly resists before the
arresting officer has the opportunity to inform him or
when the giving of such information will imperil the
arrest;
e. The person arrested, with or without warrant, shall be
informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and
that any statement he makes could be used against him.
Also, that he has the right to communicate with his
lawyer or his immediate family and the right to physical
examination;

f. A person arrested without a warrant shall be

immediately brought to the proper Police Station for
investigation without unnecessary delay. He shall be
subjected to inquest proceedings within the time
prescribed in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC);
g. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against an arrested
person. The bringing of arrested persons to secret detention
places, solitary confinement and the like is prohibited;

h. If the person arrested without a warrant waives his right under

the provisions of Art 125 of the Revised Penal Code, the arresting
officer shall ensure that the former signs a waiver of detention in
the presence of his counsel of choice; and

i. If the person arrested waives his right against self-incrimination

and chooses to give his statement, the arresting officer shall
ensure that the waiver is made in writing and signed by the
person arrested in the presence of a counsel of his own choice or
a competent and independent counsel provided by the
government.
 
 
Physical Examination of Arrested Person/Suspect

Before interrogation, the person arrested shall have

the right to be informed of his right to demand physical
examination by an independent and competent doctor
of his own choice. If he cannot afford the services of a
doctor of his own choice, he shall be provided by the
State with a competent and independent doctor to
conduct physical examination. If the person arrested
is female, she shall be attended to preferably by a
female doctor.
 

SEARCH
AND
SEIZURE
SEARCH WARRANT - is an order in writing,
issued in the name of the people of the
Philippines, signed by a judge, and directed to
a peace officer, commanding him or her to
search for personal property and bring it before
the court.
 Requisites for the Issuance of Search
Warrant

A search warrant shall be issued only upon

probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses presented. The search warrant shall
particularly describe the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines.
 Properties may be the objects of a
search warrant:

(1) Properties which are the subject of the

offense;
(2) Stolen, embezzled proceeds, or fruits
of the offense; and
(3) Objects including weapons, equipment,
and other items used or intended to be
used as the means of committing an
offense.
 Validity of
Search Warrant
a. The warrant shall be valid for
ten (10) days from date of
issuance and may be served at
any day within the said period.
Thereafter, it shall be void.
b. If, in the implementation of the
search warrant, its object or
purpose cannot be accomplished in
one day, the search can be
continued the following day, or
days, until completed, provided it is
still within the ten (10)- day validity
period of the search warrant.
c. If the object or purpose of the
search warrant cannot be
accomplished within the ten (10)-day
validity period, the responsible police
officer conducting the search must
file, before the issuing court, an
application for the extension of the
validity period of said search
warrant.
 Time of Search

The warrant should be served

during daytime, unless there is
a provision in the warrant
allowing service at any time of
the day or night.
 Authority of Police Officers when
Conducting Search

In the conduct of search, if after giving

notice of his purpose and authority, the
police officer is refused admittance to the
place of search, he may break open any
outer or inner door or window or any part of
a house or anything therein to implement
the warrant or liberate himself or any person
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
therein.
Prohibited Acts in the Conduct of Search by
Virtue of a Search Warrant

a. Houses, rooms, or other premises shall not be

searched except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family or, in
the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2)
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in
the same locality.

b. Lawful personal properties, papers, and other

valuables not specifically indicated or particularly
described in the search warrant shall not be taken.
 Inventory and Delivery of Property Seized
a. The police officer who confiscates property under the
warrant shall issue a detailed receipt of property seized to the
lawful occupant of the premises, or in the absence of such
occupant, shall do so in the presence of at least two (2)
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality;

b. The receipt shall likewise include items seized under the

Plain View Doctrine;
c. The police officer must then leave a receipt in the place in
which he found the seized property and a duplicate copy
thereof with any barangay official having jurisdiction over the
place searched; and

d. The police officer must forthwith deliver the property seized

to the judge who issued the warrant, together with an inventory
thereof, duly verified under oath.
Valid Search and Seizures Without Search
Warrant

a. Search made incidental to a valid arrest

A person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may
be used or which may constitute proof in the
commission of an offense, without a search
warrant. The warrantless search and seizure
as an incident to a lawful arrest may extend
beyond the person of the arrested to include
the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control.
Lepanto vs. CA, where the court held that
when the accused was frisked and arrested
in the street for possession of Marijuana and
when asked if he had more, answered that
he has more marijuana in his house, the
search conducted by the police officers in
the house and the consequent seizure of ten
plastic bags of Marijuana was held invalid
because the house was no longer within the
jurisdiction and control of the accused.
b. Search of moving vehicles

If the police officers who will conduct the

search have reasonable or probable cause
to believe, before the search, that either the
motorist is a law offender or they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a
crime in the vehicle to be searched, the
vehicle may be stopped and subjected to an
extensive search.
c. Seizure of evidence in plain view

Any object in the plain view is

subject to seizure and may be
introduced as evidence.
Requirements under the Plain View
Doctrine are:
(1) The police officer must have prior justification
for an intrusion or, otherwise, must be in a position
from which he can view a particular area;

(2) The discovery of the evidence in plain view is

unintentional; or

(3) It is immediately apparent to the police officer

that the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or is a valid subject of seizure.
d. When there is waiver of the right or there is
consented search

To constitute a waiver of this constitutional right, it

must appear,
first, that the right exists;
second, that the person involved had knowledge,
either actual or constructive, of the existence of such
right; that said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right.
e. Searches Under Stop and Frisk Rule

The police officer has the right to stop a

citizen on the street, interrogate him, and
pat him for weapons whenever he
observes unusual conduct which
convinces him that a criminal activity
exists.
Cadua vs. CA - It has been ruled that personal knowledge
of facts, in arrests without warrant must be based upon
probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion. . . . Peace officers may pursue and
arrest without warrant any person found in suspicious
places or under suspicious circumstances reasonably
tending to show that such person has committed, or is
about to commit, any crime or breach of the
peace. Probable cause for an arrest without warrant is such
a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves as to
warrant a reasonable man in believing the accused to be
guilty. Besides reasonable ground of suspicion, action in
good faith is another protective bulwark for the
officer. Under such conditions, even if the suspected person
is later found to be innocent, the peace officer is not liable. 
The cases hold that a peace officer might arrest and detain in
prison for examination persons walking in the street at night
whom there is reasonable ground to suspect of felony,
although there is no proof of a felony having been committed;
but the arrest would be illegal if the person so arrested was
innocent and there were no reasonable grounds of suspicion
to mislead the officer. The reason of the rule is
apparent. Good people do not ordinarily lurk about the streets
and uninhabited premises at midnight. Citizens must be
protected from annoyance and crime. Prevention of crime is
just as commendatory as the capture of criminals. Surely the
officer must not be forced to await the commission of robbery
or other felony. The rule is supported by the necessities of life.
 Emergency and Exigent Circumstances

A search warrant could be validly dispensed

with in cases of exigent and emergency
situation, and the police officers have
reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is
being committed, and they have no
opportunity to apply for a search warrant from
the courts because the latter were closed.
 Tipped Information

If the police officers have reasonable

grounds to believe that the subjects are
engaged in illegal activities, the tipped
information is sufficient to provide probable
cause to effect a warrantless search and
seizure.
 PEOPLE VS. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626

On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello of the Olongapo

PNP was tipped off by an informer that Aling Rosa
would be arriving from Baguio City  the following day
with a large volume of marijuana. As a result of the
tip,  the policemen waited for a Victory Bus from
Baguio City near the PNB Olongapo, near Rizal Ave.
When the accused got off, she was pointed to by the
informer. She was carrying a traveling bag at that
time. She was not acting suspiciously. She was
arrested without a warrant. The bag allegedly
contained 8.5 kilos of marijuana. After trial, she was
convicted and imposed a penalty of life imprisonment.
The marijuana obtained  as a result of a
warrantless search is inadmissible as evidence for
the following reasons:

a. the policemen had sufficient time to apply for a

search warrant  but they failed to do so;

b. the accused was not acting suspiciously;

c. the accused’s identity was previously

ascertained so applying for a warrant should have
been easy;

d. the accused in this case was acquitted.

PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA, 284 SCRA 703
            On June 19, 1994, at about 2 p.m., SPO1 Talingting and SPO1 Clarin
of the Dasmarinas, Cavite PNP were informed by an INFORMER that a drug
courier would be arriving in Barangay Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, from
Baguio City, with an undetermined amount of marijuana. The informer
likewise informed them that he could recognize said person.
            At about 4 in the morning of June 20, 1994, the appellant was
arrested by the above-named police officers while alighting from a
passenger jeepney  near a waiting shed in Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite,
upon being pointed to by the informer. The policemen recovered 28 kilos of
dried marijuana leaves. The arrest was without warrant.
            The trial court convicted the appellant for transporting marijuana
based on the testimonies of the Above-named police officers without
presenting the alleged informer. The accused claims that the warrantless
search and seizure is illegal because the alleged information was received
by the police on June 19, 1994 and therefore, they could have applied for a
search warrant. The said contention is without merit considering that the
information given by the informer is too sketchy and not detailed enough for
the obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant. While there is
indication that the informer knows the courier, the records do not show that
he knew his name. On bare information, the police could not have secured a
warrant from a judge.
Pp vs. Marti (193 S 57)- Where the husband of the owner of a
forwarding agency, following the SOP, opened the boxes for
final inspection. From that inspection and owing to his curiosity,
he took several grams thereof. He brought the samples
extracted to the NBI. The NBI agents went back with him and in
the presence of this agents, he totally opened all the four
wrapped packages. It turned out that they were Marijuana
flowering tops.
SC- the marijuana tops are admissible as evidence. The
constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures refers to immunity of one’s person from interference
by the gov’t. It cannot be extended to acts committed by private
individuals. Merely to observe and look at that which is plain in
sight is not a search
Pp. vs Syjuco,- A warrant was based on an information
given by person who is considered a reliable one, that
certain fraudulent books, letters, etc were being kept in
the building occupied by Syjuco and after making the
required search, the peace officers seized n art metal
filing cabinet claimed to be owned by Atty. Remo.
SC- the search was illegal because there was no
probable cause to justify the search. The oath required
must be that it constitutes a guaranty that a person
making it has personal knowledge of the facts of the
case and that it convinces the judge, not the individual
seeking the issuance of warrant of arrest of the
existence of probable cause.
 “It is not enough to do
good; one must do it the
right way.”
(John Marley)
THANK YOU