The right against deprivation of liberty is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution, which states that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law xxx" (Article 3, Section 1) and that "[n]o 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." (Art. 3, Sec.2)

*****

Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provision regarding warrants of arrest is legally inadmissible in evidence as a "fruit of the poisonous tree." This principle is covered by this exclusionary rule which is likewise enshrined in Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution.

*****

The fact that the search disclosed a prohibited substance in the suspect’s possession, and thus confirmed the police officers’ initial information and suspicion, does not cure its illegality. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by the search (People vs. Encinada, G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997). By express constitutional mandate, evidence seized in violation of a person’s rights against illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in any proceeding. A yield of incriminating evidence will not legitimize an illegal search, as the end never justifies the means.

*****

A search and seizure is normally unlawful unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. This protection is based on the principle that, between a citizen and the police, the judge stands as a mediator -- an authority clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of arrest.

*****

This right has been characterized by the Supreme Court as "a most basic and fundamental" right that has been "often violated and so deserving of full protection". Our system of justice values liberty and always insists on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government. Said the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Cuizon, G.R. No. 109287, April 18, 1996 where NBI agents mishandled a drug bust operation and in so doing violated the constitutional guarantees against unlawful arrests and illegal searches and seizures: "x x x In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no right to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors and judges may still tend to gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the name of law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual denigration of society."

*****

There are, however, instances when arrests may be made without any warrant of arrest. The exceptions [also referred to as warrantless arrests] under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 113, Sec. 5) are arrests made by a peace officer or a private 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.

*****

Sec. 5 (a) is also referred to as arrests in flagrante delicto, wherein two elements must exist: (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. Jurisprudence dictates that the person making the warrantless arrest under Sec. 5[a] above must have personal knowledge of the commission of an offense. Thus, the Supreme Court declared: "If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable." (People vs. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999).

*****

On the other hand, Section 5 (b) refers to arrests made in hot pursuit, wherein two requisites must exist: (1) an offense has in fact just been committed; and (2) the arresting officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested committed the offense.

Posted in: Legal Law