Dear PAO,

Isn’t a warrant of arrest necessary before a person accused of a crime can be lawfully arrested? That was what we were taught in school back in the day. But I recently read online that a person may be arrested without a warrant if it is done during a “hot pursuit.” Please excuse my ignorance, but what does that mean?

Terry

Dear Terry,

A warrant is indeed essential to effect a valid arrest of a person who is being accused of commission of a crime. This requirement is mandated no less than by our Constitution so as to ensure that all persons are safeguarded against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:

“SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

The protection even extends to whatever may be obtained during or as a consequence of unreasonable searches and seizures, which are inadmissible as evidence. Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution clearly provides:

“SECTION 3.

“(1) x x x

“(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

However, it bears noting that there are exceptions to the foregoing mandate, as explicitly enumerated under Section 5, Rule 113, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:

“Section 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.”

Section 5 (b), Rule 113, Id., refers to “hot pursuit” arrests. As can be gleaned from the abovementioned provision, it is necessary that: (1) the crime has just been committed; and (2) the person arresting has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime. Palpably, “hot pursuit” arrests are effected in situations where the required probable cause is met and the custody of the suspect can be immediately obtained. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, emphasized in the case of Ian Agravante y De Oca vs. People of the Philippines (GR 257450, July 11, 2022):

“x x x ‘personal knowledge,’ in the context of warrantless arrests, covers either facts or circumstances. Circumstances may pertain to events or actions within the actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer did not see someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime. In this regard, the Court has held that neither an anonymous report of a suspicious person nor a hearsay tip operate to vest personal knowledge on the police officers about the commission of an offense.

“As such, a hearsay tip by itself does not justify a warrantless arrest as law enforcers must have personal knowledge of facts, based on their observation, that the person sought to be arrested has just committed a crime.

“It is doctrinal that in warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b) of Rule 113, the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy:

x x x

“In other words, 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.

“The reason for the element of the immediacy is this — as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the element of immediacy imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer’s determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered as they were within a very limited period of time. The same provision adds another safeguard with the requirement of probable cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of circumstances before the police officer could effect a valid warrantless arrest.”

We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].