Lawful

Warrantless Searches and

Warrantless Arrests
Prof. Jefferson Dungca
 Scope of Application
Section 2 is not just a circumscription of the power of the
State over a person’s home and possessions. More importantly,
it protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself.
It is a guarantee of the right of the people to be secure in
their “persons, houses, paper and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures.”
It is therefore also a guarantee against unlawful arrests and
other forms of restraint on the physical liberty of the person.
Under our Constitution, the same is declared a popular
right of the people and, of course, indisputably it equally applies
to both citizens and foreigners in this country.
Purpose of Warrantless Arrests and
Detentions
In warrantless arrests, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to
believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime.
A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. (People v.
Burgos, G.R. No. L-68955)
I. Entrapment

It is recognized that in every arrest, there is a certain amount of

entrapment used to outwit the persons violating or about to violate the law.
Not every deception is forbidden.
The type of entrapment the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate
the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal
career. (People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299 January 22,
1999)
II. In Flagrante Delicto

In In Flagrante Delicto or (Caught in the act) arrests, the

following Requisites must be present: (OP)
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.
Reliable information alone is insufficient to support the arrest
absent any overt act from the person to be arrested indicating a
crime has just been committed, was being committed, or is about
to be committed. (Sapi v. People, G.R. No. 200370, June 7, 2017)
III. Buy-Bust Operations

In buy-bust operations, the arresting officers catch the malefactor

in flagrante delicto or in the act of performing. But the arresting officers
must neither instigate nor induce the suspect to commit a crime.
Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the
purpose of capturing a lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal intent
originated.
In such cases, a search warrant is not necessary because a search
pursuant to a buy-bust operation is one made incidental to a lawful arrest –
the suspect is caught in flagrante delicto or in the act of doing the crime in
exchange of money or other valuables. (People v. De La Cruz, G.R. No.
101315, May 12, 1993)
IV. Stop and Frisk
When a policeman observes suspicious activity, which leads
him to believe that a crime is about to be committed, he can
investigate the suspicious looking person and may frisk him for
weapons as a measure of self-protection.
Should he find, however, a weapon on the suspect, which is
unlicensed, he can arrest such person for having committed an
offense in his presence.
For the arrest of one in flagrante delicto to be valid under
Rule 112, Section 5(a), the law tilts in favor of authority. Thus,
speech which in an officer's estimation is criminally seditious can
justify warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto even if upon
prosecution the officer is proved wrong.
The criminal character of speech is something that is not easily
determined and must await court estimation. (Bernas, The 1987
Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011)
V. Hot Pursuit
In Hot Pursuit Arrest, the following Requisites must be present: (BC-PC-PK)
 1. An offense has just Been Committed; and
 2. 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. (People v. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225, April 4, 2018)

Remember the Doctrine of “Element of Immediacy”

The clincher in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances" is the required element of immediacy within which these facts or
circumstances should be gathered.
This required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers
have gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very
limited time frame. This guarantees that the police officers would have no
time to base their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances
obtained after an exhaustive investigation.
 Personal Knowledge: When Hearsay
Tip is Insufficient and not allowed
I. The rule requires that an offense had just been committed.
It connotes immediacy in point of time. Law enforcers need not personally witness the
commission of a crime. However, they must have personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested committed it.
A hearsay tip by itself is not personal knowledge required by the rule. (Sapi v. People, G.R.
No. 200370, June 7, 2017)
II. The requirement of personal knowledge is absent in this case. The Policeman was about
6-10 meters away when he saw the accused emerge from an alley holding a plastic sachet.
His testimony fails to state that he had personal knowledge that the sachet contained
shabu, or that he saw the sachet containing white crystalline substance, to create a
reasonable suspicion that the sachet did indeed contain shabu.
From all indications — the time of the arrest being 11:30 p.m., the Policeman's location,
and the tinted front windshield of the van through which he was looking — it was highly
doubtful that the Policeman saw, let alone deciphered, the contents of the sachet.
For sure, it was only when he held the hand of the accused and confiscated the plastic
sachet that he was able to verify its contents. (Villasana y Cabahug v. People, G.R. No.
209078, Sept. 4, 2019)
VI. Escapee

An arrest without warrant is lawful 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 to another.
(ROC, Sec. 5(c), Rule 113)
VII. Waiver of Right (Accused has
waived his right)
Objection to Illegal Arrest Must be Made Before Entering Plea.
Appellant is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest considering
that he never raised this before entering his plea.
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition
of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters
his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Consequently, any irregularity attendant to his arrest, if any, had been cured
by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he
entered his plea and participated during the trial.
(People v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 104663, July 24, 1997)
Sample Case / Jurisprudence of an
accused who had waived his right
Accused was seen having a pot session and that the police who arrested
him were conducting a “stakeout” operation.
When accused tested positive for drugs, he was charged with violation of
RA 9165.
Accused did not deny that he was positive for drugs but rather, he
questions the alleged illegality of his arrest.
The Court ruled that accused had already waived the right to question the
arrest. He was assisted by counsel when he entered his plea and was able
to present his evidence.
The right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the accused,
assisted by counsel, fails to object to its validity before arraignment.
(Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, Feb. 13, 2019)
 QUIZ No. 3
TRUE – if the statements were based
on legal jurisprudence. FALSE if
otherwise.
1. Under our Constitution, Sec. 2 is declared as a popular right of the
people and, of course, indisputably it equally applies to both netizens
and foreigners in this country.
2. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first to effect
detention.
3. The type of entrapment the law allows is the inducing of another to
violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a
criminal career.
4. The person to be arrested need not to execute an Overt act indicating
that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime;
5. Such overt act is done, even not in the Presence or within the view
of the arresting officer.
TRUE – if the statements were based
on legal jurisprudence. FALSE if
otherwise.
6. In buy-bust operations, the arresting officers catch the malefactor in flagrante delicto or
in the act of performing. But the arresting officers must neither instigate nor induce the
suspect to commit a crime.
7. Following a Buy-bust, a search warrant is needed because a search pursuant to a buy-
bust operation is one made incidental to a lawful arrest – the suspect is caught in
flagrante delicto or in the act of doing the crime in exchange of money or other valuables.
8. When a policeman observes suspicious activity, which leads him to believe that a crime
is about to be committed, he can investigate the suspicious looking person and may frisk
him for weapons as a measure of self-protection.
9. Doctrine of “Element of Immediacy” is The clincher in the element of ''personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element of immediacy within
which these facts or circumstances should be gathered.
10. A person may be validly arrested without warrant if he is temporarily confined
while his case is pending.