'Et

/-r
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 610, JANUARY 22,2OIO 67L
The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search. und. The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentua.l Arrest

ANNOTATION $ L. Introductory
The law allows the search, seizure and arrest of person in
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF WARRANTLESS
possession of prohibited drugs even without a warrant issued
SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS
by a judicial office to prevent abuse that may be committed by
AND EVENTUALARREST
the arresting officer may violate the freedom of the individual.
By Conditions have been proposed in the Revised Rules of Court.
Rule l-13, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court reads:
JORGE R. COQUTA.
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.-A peace offi-
cer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has com-
mitted, is actually committing, or is attempting to com-
$1. Introductory, p. 671
mit an offense;
$2. Some of the Rulings on Warrantless Search, Seizure (b) When an offense has just been cornmitted and he has
and Arrest Without Wamant, p. 672 probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
$3. Constitutional Freedom of the Individual from Unlaw. facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
ful Search and Arrest, p. 673 committed it; and
(c) WLen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has es-
$4. "Stop-and-Frisk Rule" and Use of Military Check- caped from a penal establishment or place where he is
points, p.676 serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while
sb. Arrest Without Warrant of Escaped Convicts, p. 681 his case is pending, or has escaped while being trans-
ferred from one confinement to another,
$6. Reasonable Period to Apply for Warrant of Arrest, p.
682
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and ft) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the near'
s7. Arrest by Private Person, p. 683 est police station orjail and shall be proceeded against in accordance
with section 7 of Rule 112."
$8. Duty to Deliver Arrested Person to Police or Judicial
Authority, p. 683 The facts as forrnd by the decision of the Suprerne Court in
$e. The Full Cornpliance or Conditions of Rule 113, Sec. 5 People of the Philippines us. Zenaida Quebral y Mateo, Fer-
to Protect the Individual, p. 684 nando Lopez y Ambus and Michael Saluador y Jornacion
shows that the accused who were arrested for the possession
of prohibited drugs by the police upon information by the
Chief of the Drugs Enforcement Unit who called up the police
that some persons were in possession of shabu. It was on the
following day tirat the police conducted the operation and
' Member, Board of Editorial Consultants, Supreme Court Re- eventually arrested the accused in carrying the prohibited
drugs.
ports Annotated (SCRA t.

F:4i
tiiil i'

ffiiLi

!fil]tl
 ::il
fl.
.I
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The Constitutionq.l Validity of Warrantless Search and.
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
The issue raised by the accused-appellants is whether the
conditions of Rule 113, Section 5 were complied with war-
rantless arrest.
$ 2. Some of the Rulings on Warrantless Search, Sei.
zure and Arrest Without Warrant
(a)A search, seizure and eventual arrest without warrant
as an exception to the constitutional prohibition against rea_
sonable search and seizure was originally governed by Rules
27,28;29 and 30 of the Provisional Law for the Application of
the Penal Code, which authorized among others the arrest of
persons when there is reasonable ground to believe him guilty
of some offense, provided:
First. That the authority or agent had reasonable cause to
believe than an unlawful act, amounting to crime had been
committed.
Second. That the authority or agent had sufficient reason
to believe that the person arrested participated in the com-
mission of such unlawful act or crime. (Rule 28, supra; United,
States us. Fortaleza, 12PnlL 472)
The Supreme Court in the 1909 case United States us. For-
taleza, 12 Phil. 472 likewise pointed to section 37 of Act No.
183 (Charter of Manila) which designated customs officials,
including police officers or peace officers who 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; or may arrest, or cause to be
arrested without warrant, any offender, vrhen the offense is
committed in the presence of a peace officer or within his
view.
&) The extent of a peace officer's arrest powers in the
Philippines without warrant and the limitations therein was
upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1917 case of U.S. us.
Santos (36 Phil. 85) and as stated in the Legislature in the
E
VOL. 610, JANUARY 22,2OLO 673
E
E The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
E
Charter of the City of Manila (United States us. Fortaleza, L2
H PhtI. 472); the Administrative Code (Sec. 2204, edition of
*E
E 1916) and Sec.2258, edition of 1917 which enjoins Municipal
policemen to "exercise vigilance in the prevention of public
F
ffi offenses." The decision likewise cited the common law rule in
h the arrest of suspicious night walkers.
F
&
(c) In the 1939 case of People us. Ancheta, 68 Phii. 415,
the Supreme Court pointed to section 848 of the Administra-
B tive Code and Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code as allow-
*i
&
ing members of the Constabulary or policemen to make ar-
a.
rests without warrant, not only when a crime is being com-
?' mitted or is about to be committed in their presence, but also
i when they reasonably believe or have grounds to suspect that
! a crime has been cornmitted and that it has been committed
precisely by the person arrested,
(d) Under Commonwealth Act No. 181 (Section 3), an ar-
rest without wanant may be made by agents of the Depart-
ment of Justice (i.e., the Chief of the Division of Investigation
and his subordinates) for a crime which has been committed
in their presence, or within their view, or in cases where the
person making the arrests has reasonable grounds to strongly
believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such crime and
where there is likelihood of the person escaping before a legal
wamant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person ar-
rested shall be immediately taken before the competent Court
of Justice. Under this law, members of the investigation staff
of the Bureau of Investigation shall be peace officers and as
such, have the power to make arrests, searches and seizures
in accordance with existing laws and rules.
$ 3. Conetitutional Freedom of the Individual from
Unlau.ful Search and Arrest
Article III of the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitu-
tion reads:
 x,:
H
n'
*i;: i

,
1lr
I

!fi 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 610, JANUARY 22,2OLO 675
lt'
x
The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and
flr Seizure of Prohibited Drugs an.d Euentual Arrest Seizure of Prohibited Drugs end Euentuel Arrest
ii
iiir
{: "Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or been the subject of authors in textbooks and comments in law
ti
property without due process oflaw, nor shall any person be denied journals based on constitutional principles. This annotation
trt
fi
the equal protection ofthe laws. is, however, made from the viewpoint of human righrs. An
ff
I
Section 2.
The right of the people to be secure in their per- analysis of the subject from the viewpoint of human rights,
li'l sons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and hopefully, might help clarifr the finer points on the issue,
rtil seizures ofwhatever nature and for any purpose shall be invioiable, situations on whether to arrest an individual even without a
lti I
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
Ir probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after ex-
warrant of arrest. In their enthusiasm to apprehend the cul-
lir
ill amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the prit, officers are prone to violate the individual liberty of indi-
!i:
ir.
!l
i witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the piace to viduals.
t{ti;i
be searched and the persons or things to be seized." h The facts ofthis case under annotation illustrate one ofthe
ltiiir,
i:
l':j borderline cases on warrantless arrest.
lil Article 32(4) of the Philippine Civil Code reads:
l[:
In response to bomb threats reported seven days before the
*lr
flL
"Any public offrcer or employee, or any private individual, who arrest was made, police of{icers on foot patrol on Quezon
ilri
;:r
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner Boulevard, Quiapo near the Mercury Drug Store in Plaza
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of an- Miranda saw some men acting suspiciously with their eyes
other person shall be liable tc the iatter for damages. moving fast. As the police officers approached them, the group
f;ll'
liti (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention." of men fled in different directions. One of them, the petitioner,
was caught and upon searching him they found a fragmenta-
il'
i1 The decision of the Supleme Court in Samtny Malacat us. tion grenade tucked in his waistline.
Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G..R. No. The petitioner was prosecuted and was convicted by the
t,,
123595, December 12, 1997, is another example in a long line
of controversial cases on whether arrest without warrant can
trial court of illegal possession of explosives. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision ruling that the arrest was law-
be made if the accused is caught in f'Lagrante delicto or under
ili
ii ful on the ground that the accused was attempting to commit
t}re "stop-and-frisk ru,le" on in "hot pursuit." The issue of war-
an offense. The Court ofAppeals observed: "Ttre police offrcers
rantless arrests has a long history as shown in a number of
in such a volatile situation can be guilty of gross negligence
'l varied interpretations by trialjudges, thejustices ofthe Court
and dereliction of duty, not to mention of gross incompetence,
of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Generally, the arrest of
it
if they [wouldJ frrst wait for Malacat to hurl the grenade, and
persons without judicial warrants, in many instances, is a
li:.
,ill
kill several innocent persons while maiming numerous others,
blatant violation of human rights solemnly guaranteed in before arriving at what would then be an assured but moot
..r.rticle IX of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art.
conclusion that there was indeed probable cause for an arrest.
iril
9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political We are in agreement -with the lower court in saying that the
Rights and Section 2 of Article III of the Philippine Constitu- probable cause in such a situation should not be the kind of
i:
tion. proofnecessary to convict, but rather the practical considera-
il
[]
In the front line of warrantless arrest of criminals are the tions of everyday life on which a reasonable and prudent
ti:
police officers and other peace officers who are usually con- mind, and not legal technicians, will ordinarily act.
fir fronted in sight. The decisions on warrantless arrests have
:

ii

i:.

[i:r
676 SrJPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and,
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
rule."
The Supreme Court reversed the decision and acquitted the
accused on 3 reasons:
1.There was no clear evidence that the accused was a
member of the group that attempted to bomb plaza Miranda
two days earlier;
2. There was nothing in the behavior of the accused other
than hjs eyes were moving of act that he was abouf to commit
a crime;
3. There was no probable ground that the accused was
armed with a deadly weapon. There was no telltale bulge on
the waist of the accused.
It is apparent that the Supreme Court has titled the bal-
ance of law in favor of human rights of individuals.
$ 4. "Stop-and-Frisk Rule" and Use of Military
Checkpoints
At least in "buy-bust operations" for violation of the Dan-
gerous Drugs Act, there is quite a consensus among members
of the Supreme Court on the legality of warrantless arrests
lPeople us. Claudio,160 SCRA 640 (1988); People us. Juatano
260 SCRA 632 (1996); People us. Gonzales, 22S SCRA 298
(1993); People us. Fernandez,209 SCRA 1 (1962).1 In People
t,s. Lua,256 SCRA 539 (1996), where the arrest of the accused
rvas legal, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there was
no need for warrant for the seizure of 3 bags of marijuana.
There is no consensus, however, on the legality of military
checkpoints arrests on searches and seizures.InValmonte us.
Gen. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989), the constitutional legal-
ity of military checkpoints for searches and seizures without
warrant was held to be legal. The majority opinion said:-
"True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is suscepti-
ble of abuse by the men in unifcrm, in the sqme manner that
VOL. 610, JANUARY 22,?OLO 677
T'he Constiiutional Val,idi4, oSlryorrontless Seurch and
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
all gouernrnental power is susceptible for abuse. But, at the
cost of occasional inconuenience, discomfort and euert irrita-
tion to the eitizen, the chechpoints during these abnormal
times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of
the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful commu-
nity."
Upholding the conceptual human rights, Justice Isagani
Cruz in the dissenting opinion stated: "The bland declaration
that individual rights must yield to the demands of nationq.I
security ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights was intended
precisely to limit the authority of the State euen if asserted on
the ground of national security. What is worse is that the
searches and seizures are peremptorily pronounced to be rea-
sonable euen without proof of probable cause and much less
the required warrant. The improbable excuse is that they are
airned at 'establishing an effectiue territoriq.l d,efense, main-
taining peace and order, and prouiding an atmosphere condu-
ciue to the sbcial, econonxic and political deuelopment of the
National Capital Region.' For these purposes, euery indiuidual
may be stopped and searched at random and at any time sim-
ply because he ercites the suspicion, caprice, hostility or malice
of the officers nxanning the checkpoints, on pain of anest or
u)orEe, euen being shot to death, if he resists:"
Justice Abraham Sarmiento also said that the existence of
checkpoints alone, makes searches done therein unreasonable
and repugnant to the Constitution. They are so "repressiue"
nxeasu,res, the same measures against which we had fought so
painstakingly in our quest for liberty, a quest that end.ed ut
EDSA and a quest that terminated a dictatorship. How soon
we forget. While the right against unre&sona.ble searches and
seizures, as nxy brethren aduance, is a right personal to the
aggrieued party, the petitioners, precisely, haue com.e to Court
because they had been, or had felt, aggrieued. I submit that in
that euent, the burden is the State's, to demonstrate the rea-
sonableness of the search. The petitioners, Ricardo Valmonte
in particular, need not, therefore, haue illustrated tlw "details
of th.e incident" (Resolution, supra, 4) in all their gore and
 679 SUPRET\{E COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and,
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
gru e s o tn e ne s r. I n o ry-",n rt
rant, qs I haue auened, makes checkpoint seurches unreq,son_
able, and by itself, subject to constitutional challenges. (Su-
pra), As it is, "checkpoints" hatte become *search warr(r,nts,
unto themselues-rouing one at tkat.
The Court has not also been unanimous on the legality of
"Stop and Frisk Rule." In People us. Aminnudin, elg Sina
402, 1988), the arrest of the accused was effected while he
was coming down a vessel, to all appearances, no less inno_
cent than the other disembarking passengers. He had not
committed nor was he actually committing or attempting to
commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. The
PC Officer simply arrested him and inspected his bag and
found marijuana leaves. FIe was convicted of illegal porr".-
sion of marijuana.
The court found that the arrest was illegal and the accused
was acquitted.
A dissenting opinion stated that the accused was caught in
flagrante delicto.
The leading case on this issue is people us. Burgos, !44
SCRA 11 (1986), where the Court ruled that it is not enough
that there is a reasonabie ground to believe that the p"r.on to
be arrested has committed a crime. The fact of the cornmis_
sion of the offense must be undisputed. This doctrine was
followed in Alih us. Castro, 151 SCRA 210 (1987). In people
us. Mengote,210 SCRA I74 (7992), the accused was convicled
of illegal possession of firearm merely on the strength that a
stolen pistol was found on his person at the time of his arrest
without warrant.
!i:
The incident occurreC in 1987 when the Western police
Fi::
District received a telephone call from an iaformer that there
ii:
were three suspicious looking persons in a street in Tondo.
liii
lll
The policemen went to the place and saw two men looking
ll1il
i:l from side to side, one of whom was holding his abdomen. As
the policemen approached, the two men tried to run awav but
3i::
;ti
tl.
ttiil
VOL. 610, JANUARY 22,2OTO 679
The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
the policemen apprehended them. One of thern, the accused
was found with a .38 caliber revolver and the other with a fan
knife. Mengote, the accused was prosecllted and convicted of
illegal possession of firearms.
The Court held that a warrantless arrest in broad daylight
of a person merely looking side by side and holding his abdo-
men is certainly not a crime. The person may not be stopped
and frisked on a busy street on mere unexplained suspicion.
The Court held "it would be a sad day, indeed, if an1, person
could be sumrnarily arrested and searched just because he is
holding his abdomen, euen if it be possibly because of a stom-
achache, or if a peace officer could clamp handcuffs on any
person with a shifty look on suspicion that he mey haue conr-
rnitted a crirninal act or is actually comrnitting or attempting
it. This simply cannot be done in a free society. This is not a
police sto,te where order is exalted ouer liberty or, u)orse, per-
sonal malice.on the part of the arresting officer rnay be justi-
fied in the name of security."
There is no need to discuss the other issue raised by the ac-
cused-appellant as the ruling we here make is suffi.cient to
sustain his exoneration. Without the evidence of the firearm
taken from him at the time of his illegal arrest, the prosecu-
tion has lost its most important exhibit and must therefore
fail. The said firearm is not sufficient to prove his guilt be-
yond reasonable doubt of the crime imputecl to him.
The Court reminded peace officers to be mindfuI of the pro-
visions of the Bill of Rights, the prosecution of the accused-
appellant might have succeeded. As it happened, they allowed
their overzealousness to get the better of them, resulting in
their disregard ofthe requirernents of a valid search and sei-
zure that rendered inadmissible the vital evidence they had
invalidly seized.
In People us, Encinada, 280 SCRA 72 lLg97l, the Supreme
Court held that the warrantless arrest was illegal. In said
case, the police officer received late in the afternoon a tip from

iil'
ii.r
s'1.,
illl
 :il

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 610, JANUARY 22,2OIO 681
The Constitutional Validity of WarrantL"r, Snirh-d- F The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search. o,nd
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
E
an informant that the following morning, appellant would bJ
failed. to do so. Such failure or neglect cannot etccuse him from
arriving at the Surigao Port bringing Marijuana. Withoui uiolating a constitutional right of'the appellant."
securing a search warrant allegedly because courts w"re al-
ffi ready closed for the day, the lawmen proceeded early next "x x x That the search disclosed a prohibited substance in
appellant's possession and th.is confirmed the police of,ficers'
ffii morning to the city wharf. About 8:80 a.m., they saw the sus_ H initial information and suspicion, d.id not cure its patent ille-
pect, carrlring two plastic baby chairs, disembark and thereaf-
gality. An illegal search cannot be undertahen and thcn an
ter board a tricycle. The police followed immediately and or_
dered the driver to stop. After introducing themselves, the arrest effected on the strength of the euidence yielded by the
policemen asked Encinada to alight dnd to hand over his lug_ sectrch."
gage for inspection. Fot.nd between the baby chairs *u. ". &
ffi bulky package which was later found to contain marijuana.
n
E
$ 5. Arest Without Warrant of Escaped Convicts
F
On these particulars, he was charged, tried and convicted by F Under paragraph (c) ofSection 5, a convict who evades sen-
ffi'
fifllll]
the trial court for violation ofSec. 4, Art. II ofRA 642b, hold_
h
t; tence by escaping from the custody of a policeman or penal
ffii ing that Encinada was caught in flagrante delicto. Hence, the r institutions may be arrested without warrant by a police offr-
ffi, warrantless search following his arrest was valid, and the
ffir cer or by a private individual.l
ffitir
marijuana seized was admissible in evidence. i
ffiftit However, ifthe person escapes after having been arrested,
ffii Reversing the rulirrg of the trial court, the Supreme Court Section 5(c) does not apply. The situation is governed by Sec-
ffi'
ffi,
ffi;: held that: "Encinada was not committing a crime in the pres_ tion 13 of Rule 1l-3, Rules of Court which authorized the rear-
roti
ence ofthe police; the latter did not have personal knowledge rest ofan escapee.
ffi[r of facts indicating that he just committed an offense; and raw
The right of arrest wibhout warrant of a person who es-
#[F intelligence information was not a suffrcient ground for a
ffifi caped from prison is founded on the principle that at the time
warrantless arrest. Furthermore, "(t)he prosecution,s evi-
ffi.&i
of the arrest, the escapee is in the continued act of committing
dence did not show any suspicious behavior when the appel-
ffi$
lant disembarked from the ship or while he rode the motorela. a crime, 1.e., evasion of service of sentence.z The said Rule
ffi,i governing the arrest of detention prisoners who escaped from
Fir No act or fact demonstrating a felonious enterprise could. be
confinement. Thus, an escaped convict has no right to demand
*ir,' ascribed to appellant under such bare circumstances. Having
til*,i: from the arresting officers that they be armed with warrant of
ffi+i known the identity of their suspect the previous day, the law
ffitl arrest. A convict who is evading completion of his sentence by
ffii{l enforcers could have secured a warrant of arrest even within
ESil escaping from the penal institutions may be arrested withoui
id! such limited period (per Administrative Circular No. 18 and
warrant not only by a person in authority but also by a pri.
$*irr Circular No. 19, s. 1987). In emphasizing the importance of
vate individual.u
&:irir
crur: according respect to every person's constitutional right
ffi'*
against illegal anest and searches, the Court exhorted:
#{- "LauJtrlen cannot be allowed to uiolate euery law they are ex-
W:
pected to enforce. (Th.e policeman's.) receipt of tlte intelligence
information regarding the culprit's identity, the particular ' Salonga us. Holland, T6 Phil 414; Parulan us. Director of Pris-
ffii crime he allegedly committed and his exact whereabouts un- ons,22 SCR-{ 638 (1968).
' Parulanus. Director ofPrisons,22 SCRA.638.
W:"' derscored the need to secure a watant of his anest. Bu.t he
{i'i
lr ', ' Salonga us. Holland, ?6 Phil. 414.
ffil,'

ffir
 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 610, JANUARY 22,2OIO 683
The Constitutional Validity of Wanantless Search and. The Constitutional Validity of Warrantless Search and
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentual Arrest
$ 6. Reasonable Period to Apply for Warrant of Arrest $ 7. Arreet by Private Person

ffi Generally, a person may not be arrested without a warrant

issued by a judicial offrcer. Under Art. III, Section 2 of the
Section 9, Rule 113 ofthe Rules ofCourt states:
ffi' Philippine Constitution, it is necessary before a person may "Section 9. Method of atest by private person.-A private
Sr
ffi be taken into custody to answer for the commission of a crime.
A warrant shall issue only upon a probable cause determined
person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested
of the intention to arrest him and cause of the arrest, unless the
ffi by a judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the person to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an of-
ffiH fense, or is pursued immediately alter its commission or after the
complainant and the witnesses he mdy produce, and particu_
ffiH, arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such
iarly describing the person to be seized. inforrnation will imperil the arrest."
ffi If there is reasonable time for peace officers to serve the
rui
warrant, any arrest without such warrant is unlawful. The power of the private person to arrest without warrant
ffi is one that must be exercised in utmost good faith or else it
ffi,i
rui Warrantless arrest is not justified considering the fact that
would be an excuse for violation of the individual liberties
ffi three (3) days had elapsed from the date of the ambush kill_
guaranteed in the Constitution.o
ffiF:
ffi, ing. It shows lack of credibility of prosecution witness.o War_
Hlli rant is required to arrest suspect and for the search and sei-
ffi $ 8. Duty to Deliver Arrested Person to Police or Ju-
ffi, zure of his personal effects if the same was done 49 hours dicial Authority
frff!i
ffir after the commission of the crime.6
ils,
Section 2(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 2438 simplifies fur- The human rights of a person illegally arrested is violated
ffi
ftlI ther the duties of the arrestrng officer or private individuals. if he is not deli'rered to the proper judicial authority within
ffi: Section 2(b) reads: the specified period as provided by law. Even if the war-
ffiit: rantless arrest is illegal but the person arrested is turned
ffi, "section 2(b): Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting over to the proper judicial authority immediately, at least the
under his order or in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates judicial offrcer can remedy the irregularity as soon as possible
#r any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, and order the release of the individual to enjoy his liberty.
$ii in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to re-
Hi; main silent and to have competent and independent counsel, pref- 'Art. 125. Delay in the deliuery of detained persons to proper
S.'iiil
lHii.'
erably of his own choice, who shali at all times be allowed to confer judicial authorities.-The penalties provided in the next preceding
F,S
in private with the person arrested, detained or under custodial article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who
fuT:. investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to de-
6lll'
counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent liver such person to the properjudicial authorities within the period
counsel by the investigating officer." See People us. Lacap,1T1 SCRA of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light pen-
tr- 147 [1989]; People us. Albior,163 SCRA 333 [1988].' alties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses
6ifr'
punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-
Si
fl,.1
six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afllictive or capi-
llr.
tal penalties, or their equivalent."
r
People us. Monda, Jr.,22B SCRA 115 (1993).
u
People us. Manluht,231 SCRA, 701 (1994). ' People us. Gala, CA-G.R. No. L.-13244, Dec. 15, 1955,

ffi
ffiir
B]
 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The Constitutional Validity of Wanantless Search and
Seizure of Prohibited Drugs and Euentuul Arrest
If the arrest is made by a private individual and he does
not turn over the arrested person to the proper judicial au_
thority within the period provided by law, he is guilty of ille_
gal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Fenal Code
(Lino us..Fugoso, 77 Phil. 933; Sallo us, C.ruz,105 Phil. g1S).

S 9. The Full Compliance or Conditions of Rule Ll3,

Sec.5 to Protect the Individual

In People us. Sucro (195 SCRA 388 (1991), We held that

when a police oilicer sees the offense, although at a distance,
or hears the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at
once to the scene thereof, he may effect an arrest without a
warrant on the basis of Section 5, par. (a), Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court as the offense is deemed committed in his
presence or within his view.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that any objec-
tion involving a wart'ant of arrest or the procedure for the
acquisition by the court ofjurisdiction over the person ofthe
INDEX
accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise,
the objection is deemed waived.
Accused-appellant was not even denied due process by vir-
l[l
tue of his alleged illegal arrest, because of his voiuntary sub-
S*
mission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, as manifested by
tr,f
$ll Lhe voluntary and counsel-assisted plea he entered during
ilr
ir:l arraigament and by his active participation in the trial there-
I.
j,, afler. (People us. Gonzalez,560 SCRA 419 t20081)
i,

1i
it:
:
_o0o_
*il
i
1

,iri

ili l

j,
i
it.
ili

.f1,

'!ltl
E
;'

1f,

i::t, l