Warrant EIN Field with airSlate SignNow

Warrant ein field

hello again everyone prosecutor fabrika here i will be sharing to you a new topic and i believe this topic is of particular interest not only of law students but of ordinary people as well before that let me emphasize that this lecture is merely a supplement to your study of criminal law it does not seek to supplant your reading materials nor contradict what your professors have discussed to you about the subject matter the ideas presented here are a synthesis of supreme court rulings and opinions of various authors on the subject again this is not an attempt to present myself as an expert in the field but merely to share my little knowledge of criminal law drawing from my experience as a prosecutor for the past 11 years the topic which i am quite excited to share to you is based on the following question can you arrest a person even without a warrant of arrest the answer to this is a resounding yes but before answering that question i believe it is imperative that we should have an idea first of what a warrant of arrest is so a warrant of arrest is a legal process issued by a court directing the arrest of a person for the alleged commission of a crime take note that the issuance of a warrant of arrest doesn't mean that the person has already been a judge guilty of the crime no he is issued a warrant of arrest in order that he may be brought to the jurisdiction of the court and so that trial can proceed that is the only objective of a warrant of arrest because if the accused is not arrested or if the accused does not voluntarily surrender to the court to answer for the commission of the crime the alleged commission of the crime then the case or the trial could not start the case will be archived and it will only be revived after the accused is arrested or the accused voluntarily surrenders to the jurisdiction of the court having learned of the nature and purpose of a warrant of arrest the next question to ask is what is an arrest an arrest is the taking or the physical taking of a person in into the custody of the court in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of a crime so you can see here in the picture that there is a person here who is probably handcuffed by police officers and brought to a certain place most probably the court where he would be posting bail or he would be issued a commitment order for him to be placed in a jail facility speaking about crime a crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a penal law forbidding or commanding it an example of an act committed in violation of a penal law is this if you have sexual intercourse with a minor even if the minor consents you have committed the crime of sexual abuse under republic act 7610 on the other hand an example of an omission in violation of a penal law is this if you as a police officer delays the release of a detention prisoner even after being ordered by the court to do so then you have committed the crime of delaying release under article 126 of the revised penal code the omission here is your failure to perform a duty in joint by law how do we know if it is a penal law it is a penal law if it defines a crime treats of its nature and provides a penalty for its violation for example the killing of a person is a crime because it is defined and penalized as either murder in article 248 or homicide in article 249 of the revised penal code convicted the offender will be punished with imprisonment of either regulation perpetua for murder or regulation temporal for homicide of course without prejudice to the application of the indeterminate sentence law when we talk about the penalty of regulation temporal and of course the application of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances under what instance shall a court issue a warrant of arrest the court shall issue a warrant for the arrest of a person when number one there is a criminal case either through a complaint or information filed in court against a person and the judge after evaluating the evidence the information the resolution of the fiscal and the evidence the documentary evidence attached to the information finds probable cause to place the said person under immediate custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice and if i may add so that the accused will be brought to the jurisdiction of the court because a court cannot proceed with the case if it has not yet obtained jurisdiction over the person of the accused now what is the case flow that leads to the issuance of a warrant of arrest let me give you an example let us suppose x kills y and x then goes into hiding meaning to say after x committed the crime he escaped to avoid being arrested so much so that after about a month it was only at that time that the police was able to gather a witness and file a complaint for murder against acts in the fiscal's office then the fiscal when the complaint was received by him would have to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case considering that it is a complaint for murder although there are other criminal complaints or there are cases where preliminary investigation is no longer required but for purposes of this example since the example is about murder the prosecutor is enjoined to conduct a preliminary investigation and a preliminary investigation is a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial so in a preliminary investigation the prosecutor or the fiscal after the filing of the complaint in this example will have to issue a subpoena addressed to the respondent or to the would be accused directing him to submit his counter affidavit within 10 days from his receipt of the subpoena together with the copy of the complaint filed by the police and whether or not he submits his counter affidavit the prosecutor will have to issue a resolution within two months from the time the case or the complaint was filed before his office and his resolution would either dismiss the complaint filed by the police or recommend the filing of an information in court now the word information is the name for the criminal case which will be filed by the prosecutor in court the court that has jurisdiction over the offense charge so when you say jurisdiction it is the power and authority of a court to hear and decide a case and in the case of murder it is the regional trial court that has jurisdiction over the offense charged so when the information reaches the court the judge would then have to evaluate the information the resolution of the fiscal as well as the evidence attached to the information he must personally evaluate whether or not there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest and if he finds probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest then he will have to issue a warrant of arrest if he doesn't find probable cause at that point in time the judge may dismiss the case even without going to trial first that is so provided in the rules but let us stick with the case flow so to repeat here x kills y x then goes into hiding meaning to say the accused was not x was not immediately arrested it was only after about a month that the police was able to gather evidence that's why it filed a case in the fiscal office the fiscal found probable cause to charge ex with murder he accordingly files the criminal case in court and the court after evaluating the evidence issues a warrant of arrest so this is how a criminal case flows leading to the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the court going back to the question of whether or not a person can be arrested even without a warrant the answer is yes and under section 5 rule 113 of the revised rules and criminal procedure a peace officer or a private person may without a warrant arrest a person number one when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime second instance where a person can be arrested without a warrant is when a crime has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it third instance when a person can be arrested without a warrant is when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a panel 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 so this is found to repeat in section 5 rule 113 of the revised rules on criminal procedure for your benefit let us treat each of these instances in the following slides these are the instances of valid warrantless arrests number one when in the presence of the arresting officer or a private person the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime this is to abbreviate described as infla granted to arrest meaning a person is caught in the act of committing a crime and take note of the underscored portions of this sentence as well as the italicized portions a private person or a police officer either of them may or can affect a warrantless arrest so erase from your minds the notion or the idea that only a police officer or a peace officer can effect a warrantless arrest no even a private person can affect a warrantless arrest when a crime is committed in his presence example ex who may be a peace officer or a private person in his presence so why stop z so it pertains to has committed x in his presence sees why stabbing z so this example pertains to the phrase is actually committing or x in his presence sees why attempting to stop z this example pertains to the phrase is attempting to commit a crime here if this is the situation obtaining x may arrest y even without a warrant of arrest for a warrantless arrest of infla granted delete to be valid two elements must concur number one 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 number two such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer or the private person the overt act being referred to here as shown in the example i have given is the overt act of y stabbing z or the overtake of y attempting to stop z and this overt act must be committed in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer or private person meaning to say the arresting officer or the private person must have seen with his eyes the commission of the crime also in infla granted the leak to warrantless arrest it should comply with the element of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest what do i mean by this for example if the warrantless arrest was made by x three months after the crime was committed even if x actually saw the commission of the crime the crime or rather the arrest is already illegal why because it didn't comply with the element of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest second instance of a valid warrantless arrest is this when the crime has in fact just been committed and the arresting officer or the private person has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it in short this is called the doctrine of hat pursuit here are the requisites number one the commission of the crime referred to in this second instance is qualified by the word just meaning has in fact just been committed implying immediacy and second requisite the warrantless arrest should be based on probable cause to be determined by the arresting officer based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime example number one the policeman arrested x some three hours after x had killed y the policeman saw why dead in the hospital and when he inspected the scene of the crime he found the piece of wood which ex had used to bludgeon white to death an eyewitness named z reported the killing to the policeman and together with z the eyewitness the policeman proceeded to where x was and z pinpointed x as the killer here the policeman did not need to actually witness the commission of the crime as you can see you no he was not there he was not present or when the crime was committed it was not within his view but he can still in this example he he could still effect a valid warrantless arrest because he already had probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed a crime what are those facts and circumstances leading to the conclusion that x is the perpetrator of the crime first the fact that why is already dead when the policeman confirmed for himself that the victim is already dead and second circumstance is when was when the policeman inspecting the scene of the crime saw the instrument used by x in killing y and most importantly there was an eyewitness who pinpointed to x as the perpetrator so a combination of these circumstances would create probable cause in the mind of the policeman that x could have authored the killing and armed with this probable cause he can now proceed to arrest x even without a warrant of arrest so if if you can notice the last sentence of this line he must have referring to the policeman direct knowledge or a view of the crime right after its commission enough to create probable cause in his mind that the person to be arrested has committed it example number two the policeman based merely on a tip given by x a bystander that y allegedly stabbed z proceeded to immediately arrest why who together with his wife was about to go inside his house here a hearsay tip by itself given by ex does not justify or did not justify a warrantless arrest because the police officer before he can effect a valid warrantless arrest under the second instance he must have personal knowledge first of facts or facts and circumstances based on his observation that the person to be arrested has just committed the crime this is what gives rise to probable cause that would justify a hot pursuit arrest and as you can see in the example he was armed merely with a tip and nothing more unlike in the first example where the policeman had a view of the crime and he was accompanied by an eyewitness who directly pinpointed to the culprit but in this instance in this example he arrested y based merely on a tip and at the time he arrested why why was not committing any crime because he was together with his wife entering his house or about to enter his house and that is not a crime so in this example the arrest is illegal or invalid example number three x voluntarily surrendered to the authorities stating that y forcibly recruited him to become a member of the npa with threat of physical harm upon receipt of this information a joint team of pnp and afp operatives were dispatched to arrest y who at the time of the arrest was merely plowing the field here the arrest was invalid considering that the only information that the authorities had in effecting the arrest was the information from a third person it cannot also be said in this case that there was certainty as regards the commission of the crime similar to example number two the information was based merely on a tip without any further investigation that would create probable cause in the mind of the arresting officers that the person to be arrested has committed a crime note in determining probable cause the arresting officer may rely on all the information in his possession his fair influences there from including his observations so this is a combination and why is this needed because this is needed because unlike in the first instance where a crime was committed or is committed in his presence in the second instance the police officer here did not actually see the commission of the crime although the crime has just been committed still he was not there when the crime was committed that's why it is necessary for the police officer concerned to gather facts and circumstances in his within his personal knowledge that would create in him the personal belief or the probable cause that a crime has indeed been committed and the person to be arrested has committed such crime because mere suspicion especially if it is a mere general suspicion is not enough thus the arresting officer may rely on information supplied by a witness or a victim of a crime and under the circumstances the arresting officer need not verify such information example number 4a the killing of x by y happened on december 8 2020 on the basis of the supposed identification of two witnesses the nbi arrested why five days after the commission of the crime the warrantless arrest here is illegal because even if we assume that the two witnesses had personal knowledge of the crime it can no longer be said at the time of the arrest that the crime has just been committed again there is here the element the requirement of immediacy the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest and five days is too long to conduct a hot pursuit operation parang called pursuit operation example number 4b the arrest of x did not comply with the requirements of hot pursuit arrest because he was arrested a day after the commission of the crime and not immediately thereafter additionally the arresting officers were not present and were not actual witnesses to the crime neither did they investigate the crime scene or interview witnesses for them to have the so-called personal knowledge of facts indicating that x had committed the offense so this example is similar to the previous examples in many cases the supreme court has emphasized that the rule requires that a crime has just been committed this connotes immediacy in point of time that a crime was in fact committed does not automatically bring the case under this rule this is uh with reference to the second instance an arrest under rule 113 section 5b of the rules of court entails a time element from the moment the crime is committed up to the point of arrest so for purposes of emphasis it is a requirement in order for the doctrine of hot pursuit to be properly applied that the time of arrest must not be so far from the time the supposed crime was committed and if you can remember the previous example the last example example 4b an arrest made a day after the commission of the supposed crime according to the supreme court is already far removed from the requirement or did not comply with the requirement that the crime has just been committed the last instance where a person a private person or a peace officer may affect a valid warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is a convict who has escaped from prison where he is serving sentence or a detention prisoner who who is temporarily confined while his case is pending or a convict or a detention prisoner who has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another so in general escapees meaning to say those who have escaped from a panel establishment whether he be a convict or a detention prisoner may be arrested without warrant for the purpose of bringing them back to the jail where they are in prison