Anda di halaman 1dari 23

LEGALITY OF WARRANTLESS ARREST

BASED ON
RELIABLE INFORMATION
(DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES)
Is arrest without warrant allowed under our laws and
rules?

Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides the ff:


1. In flagrante delicto
2 Elements:
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.
2. Hot pursuit

2 Elements:

1. An offense has in fact just been committed; and

2. The arresting officer has personal knowledge of


facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed an
offense.
However, with the enactment of RA 9165, the PNP
and other government agencies mandated to enforce the said law,
have relied a great deal upon reliable information passed on to
them by their assets and informants.
Is warrantless arrest based on reliable information
allowed?

Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a


warrantless arrest. (People vs Rancho, GR No. 186529,
Aug. 3, 2010)
What other elements are required for warrantless arrest
based on reliable information to be justified?

The rule requires that:


1. The accused perform some overt act that
would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit and offense;

2. The overt act must be done in the presence


or within the view of the arresting officer;

3. The overt act need not necessarily be the


entirety of the offense
3. The overt act need not necessarily be the
entirety of the offense itself, but rather, that it “indicates” that
there is an offense;

4. The behavior or conduct of the person to be


arrested must be clearly indicative of a criminal act.

If there is no outward indication at all that calls for


an arrest, the suspect cannot be validly apprehended,
notwithstanding a tip from an informant that he would at
the time be undertaking a felonious enterprise.
(Concurring opinion of Justice Artemio V Panganiban in
People vs Doria, 301 SCRA 668)
Is personal knowledge in such arrests important?

In People vs Martinez, the court held illegal the arrest


of suspects who were surprised by police officers who were
tipped that a pot session was on-going in the place
mentioned. It appears that the main reason for the illegality
of the arrest is the fact that upon entering the house of the
accused and arresting them, the police officers had no
personal knowledge of the illegality activity being
conducted. The only basis was the tipped information.
In Zalameda vs People, the court held that the
warrantless arrest was lawful. The accused therein were
arrested after a police officer received a tip from an unknown
caller, went to the address indicated and peeped through a
door, and saw an on-going pot session.

Reconciling these two differing decision of the Court, it


may be said that an arrest following a tip from an
informer may be lawful if the arrest is preceded by or
accompanied with some form of personal knowledge on
the part of the arresting officer.
When do we consider peeking through an open door or
window to be a valid search without a warrant?

The act of the police officer of peeking to be valid


search without a warrant must not consist of physical
intrusion into the space within the building. Any activity
which the police officer views by peeping should be viewable
from outside the building.
As held in US vs Delos Reyes and Esguerra, 20 Phil 467, 473
“The mere fact that a man is an officer, whether of high or low
degree, gives him no more right than is possessed by the
ordinary private citizen to break in upon the privacy of the home
and subject its occupant to the indignity of a search for the
evidence of a crime, without a legal warrant procured for the
purpose.xxx”
May a tipped information be considered as sufficient
probable cause?

The court has ruled in several dangerous drugs cases


that tipped information is sufficient probable cause, and
thus adequate basis for warrantless arrest.

These special cases include instances where there is:


1. Lack of information as to the description of the
vehicle and time of arrival.

In People vs Maspil, GR No. 85177, Aug. 20, 1990,


police officers were tipped off by some confidential informers
that the accused would be transporting a large volume of
marijuana to Baguio City. By reason of the received
information, a checkpoint was set-up which in turn
intercepted a jeepney driven by the accused. Upon
inspection, the vehicle was found loaded with several
bundles of suspected dried marijuana leaves.
The court has held that the accused were caught
in flagrante delicto since they were transporting the
prohibited drugs at the time of their arrest. Be it noted
that the court ruled that at the time of the arrest, a crime
was actually being committed.
In Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 (1988) the court
ratiocinated that in the above-mentioned case, the
police officers have sufficient time and adequate
information to have obtained a warrant, which time
and information, in the case of Maspil, is wanting and
lacking.
2. Prior surveillance of the accused.

In People vs Balingan, GR No. 105834, Feb.


13, 1995, the Narcotics Intelligence Division of the
Baguio CPS received a telephone call from an
unnamed male informant that the accused was going
to Manila transporting a bag of marijuana.
Immediately, a surveillance team was formed with the
end goal of monitoring the movement of the accused.
With the team deployed in different places
within the city, the accused was then sighted
boarding a bus. When he was already seated, and
his luggage safely tucked in the luggage carrier
above her head, one of the team members identified
himself as a police officer and that a routinary check-
up will be conducted. He then asked the accused for
permission to open her bag. The accused did not
respond and merely looked outside the bus window.
The officer opened the luggage and found suspected
marijuana inside the bag which fact was made the
ground for the arrest of the accused.
In ruling that the arrest was lawful and with
sufficient basis, the court said that the warrantless
search is not bereft of a probable cause. The
conduct of prior surveillance gave the officers
conducting the search sufficient knowledge about the
movement of the accused and the fact that she will be
transporting illegal drugs.
3. On the spot information

In People vs Valdez, GR No. 127801, Mar.


3, 1999, the police officer received a tipped
information that a thin Ilocano person with a
green bag was about to transport marijuana
from Banaue, Ifugao. When the policeman
received the information, he was waiting for a
ride in Banaue to report for work in Lagawe.
Responding to call of duty, the policeman
proceeded to Hingyon, Ifugao whereby he flagged
down buses bound for Baguio City and Manila
looking for the person fitting the description of the
informer. When he found the person as described, he
conducted a search which yielded positive. He then
put the person under arrest.
The court ruled that due to lack of enough
time to secure a warrant, coupled with the inkling
of identity of the person he was looking for, the
acts of the police officer in conducting the search
and subsequent arrest were valid.
Is the use of informants and tipster consistent with the
law?

Yes. The law allowed the grant of compensation,


reward and award to any person providing information
and to law enforcers participating in the operation,
which results in the successful confiscation, seizure
or surrender of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals. (Sec. 22 of RA 9165)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai