RULE 113 - ARREST

Sec. 4. Execution of Warrant

The head of the office to whom the
warrant of arrest was delivered for
execution shall cause the warrant to be
executed within ten (10) days from its
receipt. Within ten (10) days after the
expiration of the period, the officer to
whom it was assigned for execution shall
make a report to the judge who issued the
warrant. In case of his failure to execute
the warrant, he shall state the reasons
therefor.
 RULE 113 ARREST, SEC.
4.

Mandatory for the head of office to whom the warrant

of arrest was delivered for execution shall cause the
execution of the warrant within ten (10) days from its
receipt.
 PERIOD OF WARRANT OF
ARREST

Validity of a warrant of arrest is limited to ten (10)

days, after which, it becomes void.

10 days is the directory period for the executing

officer to make a return to the court.

The warrant of arrest continues to be in force even

though it was not served within the mandatory 10 day
period as long as it has not been recalled or the
person named therein arrested or submitted himself
to the courts jurisdiction
 PEOPLE VS. GIVERA 349
SCRA 513
FACTS:
Accused, Cesar Givera was charged guilty of murder of Eusebio Gardon.
The court issued a warrant of arrest on April 1995. The warrant was
returned unserved by the arresting officer on June 1995 because Givera
cannot be found. Givera was only arrested at East Avenue Medical Center
on May 1996.

HELD:
The warrant of arrest remains to be enforceable until it is executed,
recalled, or quashed. The ten (10) day period on provided on the rules is
only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return to the
court.
 RULE 113 ARREST, SEC. 5
Sec. 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;

(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 is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraph (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.
 RULE 113 ARREST, SEC. 5
As a general rule, NO peace officer or
person has the power or authority to arrest
anyone without a warrant except on the
situations provided in this section.

BURDEN OF PROOF is with the person

arresting or causing the arrest to show that
the arrest was lawful.

The warrantless arrest must fall within this

 PEOPLE VS. MALASUGUI 63 PHIL.
221
FACTS:
Tan Why, a Chinese merchant was found lying on the ground with
several wounds in the head and died. When Tan was found on the
morning in question. He was still alive and answered Kagui. Kagui
Malasugui was known and the Lieutenant of the Constabulary ordered
his arrest. Kagui was arrested and searched without opposition on his
part, and was found articles as sufficient evidence against him.

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Malasugui upon arrested, he voluntarily
permitted the officer to search him and take the articles in question to
be used as evidence against him. Peace officers may make arrests
without judicial warrant not only when a crime is committed, or is
about to be committed in their presence, but also when there is reason
to believe or sufficient ground to suspect that one has been committed
by the person arrested.
 Warrantless arrest under
Paragraph A
(in flagrante delicto arrests)
While in the presence of the peace
officer or private person, the person to be
arrested:

1.) Has committed an offense

2.) Actually committing an offense
3.) Attempting to commit an offense
 IN THE PRESENCE of the
peace officers
Within the view
Sees the offense although at a distance
Hears the disturbances created
Offense is continuing
Offense has been consummated
 PEOPLE VS. CACO, 222 SCRA 49

FACTS:
Patrolman, Quillan received an information from a civilian that spouses
Caco were selling marijuana in their house. The police officers
conducted a buy-bust operation and designated patrolman Quillan as
poseur-buyer. He went to the house and was solded a marijuana by
Lilibeth Caco. There, they conducted a search and confisacted the
marijuanas and arrested Caco.

HELD:
The arrest was valid, Lilibeth Caco was caught in flagrante selling
marijuana to the poseur buyer. She was then lawfully arrested without
a warrant because she was committing or has just committed a crime
in the presence of the police officers.
 IN RE: HABEAS CORPUS UMIL, ET. AL. 187
SCRA 311
FACTS:
Umil et. Al. were arrested in connection with the killings of 2 CAPCOM
soldiers. Dural was captured and identified 1 day after the incident
because he needed medical care. Umil et. Al. filed a petition for
habeas corpus. Umil and Villanueva posted bail at RTC Pasay where
charges for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act.

HELD:
Rebellion is a continuing offense, a rebel may be arrested at any time,
with or without a warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of
committing an offense at any time of the day or night.
 Warrantless arrest under
Paragraph B
An offense has just been committed

Person making the arrest has probable

cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances,
that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
 Concept of probable cause
Personal knowledge on the part of the
officers must be based on probable cause
which is an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion.

Such suspicion must be based on actual

facts and is sufficiently strong coupled
with good faith.
 ALIH VS. CASTRO, 151 SCRA 279

FACTS:
A group of 200 peace officers raided without a search warrant the
compound of Alih et. Al. in search of loose firearms, ammunition and
other explosives. The group of Alih resisted and a crossfire between
them and the peace officers occurred and many were killed. The
things in the compound were also seized. The next morning, the group
of Alih surrendered and filed prohibition and argued that the search is
not valid because of no search warrant.

HELD:
The search is not valid, the arrest does not fall on the warrantless
arrest provided in Sec. 5 of Rule 113. It is to note that the officer
making the arrest must have personal knowledge of certain facts or
circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
an offense. In this case, they failed to do so.
PEOPLE VS. EVARISTO, 216 SCRA 431
FACTS:
Police officers while on patrol heard burst of gunfire and saw Rosillo
firing a gun into the air. Rosillo ran to the nearby house of Evaristo.
The officers noticed that Carillo was in possession of an illegal firearm.
Other officers were permitted by Evaristo to search his house and
found illegal firearms in his possession wherein he was arrested and
the firearms were seized.

HELD:
The arrest so as to the search and seizure is valid. The seizure of the
firearm was valid and lawful for being incidental to a lawful arrest. The
time the officers heard gunfire, they proceeded to investigate and has
now sufficient knowledge on their part to search the house, and arrest
Evaristo.
Warrantless arrest under
Paragraph C
Person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped:
a.) in a penal establishment
b.) in a place serving his final judgment
c.) in a place where he is temporarily
confined while case is pending
d.) and, while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
PARULAN VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, 22 SCRA
638
FACTS:
Ricardo Parulan was serving life imprisonment in a state penitentiary
in Muntinlupa. While still serving his sentence, he escaped from his
confinement and was recaptured without a warrant in Manila. He was
prosecuted for the crime of evasion of service of sentence under RPC.
Parulan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for his immediate
release from the unlawful and illegal confinement..

HELD:
The arrest was valid. This case is one of the instances of a warrantless
arrest falling on Paragracph c of Rule 113 wherein the person to be
arrested has escaped from confinement. Founding principle of this is
that at the time of the arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of
committing a crime which is evasion the service of his sentence.
 Persons authorized to make an
arrest
Peace officers
Private persons
 Duty of person making arrest
Person arrested in paragraphs A & B:
Offense cognizable in RTC, person must be
delivered to the nearest police station or
jail and a complaint or information must
be filed against him.
Offense cognizable in MTC, person must
be delivered to the nearest police station
or jail and the corresponding charge
preferred against him with the proper
court.