THERE are many ways to arrest a person. And for the past few months, we read or heard about persons arrested for committing crimes but the arrests had no court-issued arrest warrants.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that 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; and
(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.
The first situation refers to “in flagrante delicto” arrest.
The second situation is called “hot pursuit” arrest.
The third situation necessarily means that a person escapes and must be brought back to the prison or in the place where he is serving sentence.
Recently, I heard a lot of news about persons who are at-large because they ran away after committing a crime. And they were arrested without arrest warrants.
People would normally ask if this is legal. This situation falls under the second situation which is called “hot pursuit.”
It is to be noted that an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Personal knowledge must be based on probable cause. Probable cause is “an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.”
A reasonable suspicion must be founded on probable cause coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
Law enforcers need not personally witness the commission of a crime. What is need is that they must have direct knowledge of facts and circumstances right after the commission of the crime. There should be no appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime. Time gap is an important element in this situation. The reason for this is that time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest extends, which the Supreme Court described as “the pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay.”
Of course, from the moment the arrested person is brought in the custody of the law, he must be afforded his rights under the law. Under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.”
It is provided further that “no torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.”
This situation is one of the issues raised by advocates of human rights. The people must be protected under the law. The people must be protected against the possible abuses of law enforcers.
But of course, the people also have the obligation to abide with the law./PN
