Criminal Procedure

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI, defendant-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Herminio T. Llariza counsel de-officio for defendant-appellant.

CRUZ, J .:
The accused-appellant claimed his business was selling watches but he was nonetheless arrested, tried and found
guilty of illegally transporting marijuana. The trial court, disbelieving him, held it was high time to put him away and
sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.
1

Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the
evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and
finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of
suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they were
verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him.
2
Later,
the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening
and likewise investigated.
3
Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
4
Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to
dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a
'thorough investigation."
5
The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant, who was
eventually convicted .
6

According to the prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the accused-
appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana.
7
He was Identified by
name.
8
Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the evening of June 25, 1984, and approached him as he descended
from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him.
9
They detained him and inspected the bag he was
carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic
examiner,
10
who testified that she conducted microscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests on them. On the
basis of this finding, the corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin.
In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of
a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants.
11
He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed.
His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit
he was carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he
parried the blows while he was still handcuffed.
12
He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and
that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes.
13
He also argued that the marijuana he was alleged
to have been carrying was not properly Identified and could have been any of several bundles kept in the stock room
of the PC headquarters.
14

The trial court was unconvinced, noting from its own examination of the accused that he claimed to have come to
Iloilo City to sell watches but carried only two watches at the time, traveling from Jolo for that purpose and spending
P107.00 for fare, not to mention his other expenses.
15
Aminnudin testified that he kept the two watches in a secret
pocket below his belt but, strangely, they were not discovered when he was bodily searched by the arresting officers
nor were they damaged as a result of his manhandling.
16
He also said he sold one of the watches for P400.00 and
gave away the other, although the watches belonged not to him but to his cousin,
17
to a friend whose full name he
said did not even know.
18
The trial court also rejected his allegations of maltreatment, observing that he had not
sufficiently proved the injuries sustained by him.
19

There is no justification to reverse these factual findings, considering that it was the trial judge who had immediate
access to the testimony of the witnesses and had the opportunity to weigh their credibility on the stand. Nuances of
tone or voice, meaningful pauses and hesitation, flush of face and dart of eyes, which may reveal the truth or expose
the lie, are not described in the impersonal record. But the trial judge sees all of this, discovering for himself the
truant fact amidst the falsities.
The only exception we may make in this case is the trial court's conclusion that the accused-appellant was not really
beaten up because he did not complain about it later nor did he submit to a medical examination. That is hardly fair
or realistic. It is possible Aminnudin never had that opportunity as he was at that time under detention by the PC
authorities and in fact has never been set free since he was arrested in 1984 and up to the present. No bail has been
allowed for his release.
There is one point that deserves closer examination, however, and it is Aminnudin's claim that he was arrested and
searched without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found in his possession inadmissible in evidence against
him under the Bill of Rights. The decision did not even discuss this point. For his part, the Solicitor General
dismissed this after an all-too-short argument that the arrest of Aminnudin was valid because it came under Rule
113, Section 6(b) of the Rules of Court on warrantless arrests. This made the search also valid as incidental to a
lawful arrest.
It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the prosecution, that they had no
warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they
had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo
by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one saying it was two days before
the arrest,
20
another two weeks
21
and a third "weeks before June 25."
22
On this matter, we may prefer the
declaration of the chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr., who testified as follows:
That last answer is a cavalier pronouncement, especially as it comes from a mere lieutenant of the PC. The Supreme
Court cannot countenance such a statement. This is still a government of laws and not of men.
The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures 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.
In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by
him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was not
caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless
arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the
obtention of the warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca,
24
for example. Here it was held that vessels and aircraft are
subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.
The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that
they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was
coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was
certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable
cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law.
The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had
determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary."
In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it
has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what are popularly called "buy-bust"
operations of the narcotics agents.
25
Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the
accused was in the act of selling the prohibited drug.
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown
that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V
Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the
other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the
carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger
that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and
not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
Now that we have succeeded in restoring democracy in our country after fourteen years of the despised dictatorship,
when any one could be picked up at will, detained without charges and punished without trial, we will have only
ourselves to blame if that kind of arbitrariness is allowed to return, to once more flaunt its disdain of the Constitution
and the individual liberties its Bill of Rights guarantees.
While this is not to say that the accused-appellant is innocent, for indeed his very own words suggest that he is
lying, that fact alone does not justify a finding that he is guilty. The constitutional presumption is that he is innocent,
and he will be so declared even if his defense is weak as long as the prosecution is not strong enough to convict
him.
Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution must fall. That
evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the
marijuana was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The
search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did
not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the
evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of
our law-enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the
susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill
of Rights for the protection of the liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The
Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-
handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name
of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes, again, said, "I think it a less evil that
some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part." It is simply not allowed in the
free society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself.
We find that with the exclusion of the illegally seized marijuana as evidence against the accused-appellant, his guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he must therefore be discharged on the presumption that he is
innocent.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED. It is so
ordered.
Narvasa, Gancayco and Medialdea, J J ., concur.


Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J ., dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I hold that the accused was caught in flagrante, for he was carrying marijuana leaves in his bag
at the moment of his arrest. He was not "innocently disembarking from the vessel." The unauthorized transportation
of marijuana (Indian hemp), which is a prohibited drug, is a crime. (Sec. 4, Rep. Act No. 6425). Since he was
committing a crime, his arrest could be lawfully effected without a warrant (Sec. 6a, Rule 113, Rules of Court), and
the search of his bag (which yielded the marijuana leaves) without a search warrant was also lawful (Sec. 12, Rule
126, Rules of Court). I vote to affirm the judgment of the trial court finding him guilty of illegally transporting
marijuana.













MARIO FL. CRESPO
vs.
HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGULG.R. No. L-53373 June
30, 1987FACTS:
•
On Apri l 18, 1977 the Provi nci al Fi scal fi l ed
an i nformati on fores t af a agai nst Mar i o Fl . Cr es po.
When t he c as e was s et f or arraignment the accused filed a
motion to defer arraignment onthe ground that there was a pending
petition for review filed
witht he Sec r et ar y of J us t i c e. I n an or der , t he pr es i di
ng j udge, Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the motion.
•
A pet i t i on f or c er t i or ar i and
pr ohi bi t i on wi t h pr ayer f or apreliminary writ of injunction
was filed by the accused in the CAwhich was eventually granted
while perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his threat to
compel the arraignment of theaccused i n the case unti l the
Department of Justi ce shal l havefinally resolved the petition
for review.
•
The Undersecretary of Justice reversed the resolution of
the Officeof t he Pr ov i nci al Fi s c al and di r ec t ed t he
f i s c al t o move f or immediate dismissal of the information filed
against the accused.But the respondent judge denied the motion.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminalcase
fi l ed by the Provi nci al Fi scal upon i nstructi ons of the
Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review,
may refuse to grant themotion and insist on the arraignment and
trial on the merits.
RATIO: YES.
•
It is a cardinal principle that an criminal actions either
commencedby compl ai nt or by i nformati on shal l
be prosecuted under thedirection and control of the fiscal.

And it is through the conduct of a preliminary investigation that the
fiscal determines the existenceof a pri ma faci e case that woul d
warrant the prosecuti on of acase. The Courts cannot interfere
with the fiscal's discretion andcontrol of the criminal prosecution.
•
Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether itwas
due to a rei nvesti gati on by the fi scal or a revi ew
by theSecretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was
submittedto the Court,
the Court in the exercise of its discretion maygrant the
motion or deny it and require that the trial on themerits
proceed for the proper determination of the case.
•
The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as we all know is to see
that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of
theperson accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion
tot he c ont r ar y, i t i s t he dut y of t he f i s c al
t o pr oc eed wi t h t he presentation of evidence of the
prosecution to the Court to enablethe Court to arrive at its own
independent judgment as to whetherthe accused should be
convicted or acquitted. The fiscal shouldnot shirk from the
responsibility of appearing for the People of thePhilippines even
under such circumstances much less should heabandon the
prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of aprivate
prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null andvoid. The
least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appearfor the
prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the
evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his directionand
control.
•
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint
ori nformati on i s fi l ed i n Court any di sposi ti on of the case
as i tsdismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in
thesound di screti on of the Court. Al though
the fi scal retai ns thedi recti on and control of the
prosecuti on of cri mi nal cases evenwhile the case is already in
Court he cannot impose his opinion onthe trial court. The Court is
the best and sole judge on what to dowith the case before it. The
determination of the case is within itsexclusive jurisdiction and
competence.
A motion to dismiss thecase filed by the fiscal should be
addressed to the Courtwho has the option to grant or
deny the same. It does notmatter if this is done before or
after the arraignment of theaccused or that the motion was
filed after
a reinvestigationor upon i nst r uct i ons of t he Secr et
ar y of J ust i ce whoreviewed the records of the investig

PEOPLE V. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174; G.R. NO. 87059; 22 JUN 1992]


Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone
call from an informer that there were three suspicious
looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay
Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of
plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place.
The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side, one
of whom holding his abdomen. They approached the persons
and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two
tried to run but unable to escape because the other
lawmen surrounded them. The suspects were then searched.
One of them the accused-appellant was found with a .38
caliber with live ammunitions in it, while his companion
had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them and
they were turned over to the police headquarters for
investigation. An information was filed before the RTC
convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm
arm. A witness testified that the weapon was among the
articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the
police including the revolver. For his part, Mengote made
no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he
was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that
the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest.
He was convicted for violation of P.D.1866 and was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In his appeal he pleads
that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against
him because it had been illegally seized and therefore
the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest
was illegal.

Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal
search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any
purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32 of the
Constitution. Rule 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court,
provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b)
when the offense in fact has just been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person
arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be
arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a
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.
These requirements have not been established in the case
at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the
accused appellant was merely looking from side to side
and holding his abdomen, according to the arresting
officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that
has just been committed or was being actually committed
or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence.
Moreover a person may not be stopped and frisked in a
broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained
suspicion.
Judgment is reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is
acquitted.
Posted by Audi alteram partem. at 8:06 PM










TITLE : AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED,
DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF
THE ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF


TEXT :


S. No. 1452
H. No. 1772


Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila



Fifth Regular Session


Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-second day
of July, nineteen hundred and ninety-one.





REPUBLIC ACT 7438
TITLE : AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED,
DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES
OF
THE ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF


TEXT :


S. No. 1452
H. No. 1772


Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila



Fifth Regular Session


Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-second day
of July, nineteen hundred and ninety-one.



REPUBLIC ACT No. 7438

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON
ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:


SECTION 1. Statement of policy. - It is the policy of the
State to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full
respect for human rights.

SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or under
Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. - a) Any
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times
be assisted by counsel.

b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under
his order or in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates
any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the
services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent
and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to
writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such
report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and
adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting
counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or
dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such
investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect
whatsoever.

d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and
signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the
latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any
of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor,
or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise,
such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in
any proceeding.

e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under
custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise such waiver shall
be null and void and of no effect.

f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial
investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any
member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor of priest or
religious minister chosen by him or by any memberof his immediate
family or by his counsel, or by any national non-government
organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or
by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited
by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family"
shall include his or her spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or
child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or
aunt, nephew or neice, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include
the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting"
officer for any violation of law.


SEC. 3. Assisting Counsel. - Assisting counsel is any
lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged
with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with
the prosecution of crimes.

The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers
shall be entitled to the following fees:

a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (PI50.00) if the
suspected person is chargeable with light felonies,

b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the
suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies;

c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the
suspect is chargeable with a capital offense.

The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city
or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted,
provided that if the municipality or city cannot pay such fee, the
province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee:
Provided, That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that
no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before
the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation
shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained
by the investigating officer in accordance with the provision of
Arficle 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

SEC. 4. Penalty Clause. - a) Any arresting public officer or
employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six
thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not
less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or
both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall
also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been
previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or
employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating
officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the
latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any
lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained
or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor
or priest or religiousminister chosen by him or any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring
privately with him, or from examining and treating him, or from
ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in
urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than four (4) years, and a fine of Four
thousand pesos (P4,000.00).

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any
security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee
or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be
necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape.


SEC. 5. Repealing Clause. - Republic Act No. 857, as
amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential decrees,
executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or
modified accordingly.


SEC. 6. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen
(15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in
any daily newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines



AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON
ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:


SECTION 1. Statement of policy. - It is the policy of the
State to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full
respect for human rights.

SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or under
Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. - a) Any
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.

b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under
his order or in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates
any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the
services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent
and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to
writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such
report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and
adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting
counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or
dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such
investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect
whatsoever.

d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and
signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the
latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any
of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor,
or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise,
such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in
any proceeding.

e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under
custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise such waiver shall
be null and void and of no effect.

f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial
investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any
member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor of priest or
religious minister chosen by him or by any memberof his immediate
family or by his counsel, or by any national non-government
organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or
by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited
by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family"
shall include his or her spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or
child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or
aunt, nephew or neice, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include
the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting"
officer for any violation of law.


SEC. 3. Assisting Counsel. - Assisting counsel is any
lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged
with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with
the prosecution of crimes.

The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers
shall be entitled to the following fees:

a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (PI50.00) if the
suspected person is chargeable with light felonies,

b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the
suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies;

c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the
suspect is chargeable with a capital offense.

The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city
or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted,
provided that if the municipality or city cannot pay such fee, the
province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee:
Provided, That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that
no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before
the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation
shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained
by the investigating officer in accordance with the provision of
Arficle 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

SEC. 4. Penalty Clause. - a) Any arresting public officer or
employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six
thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not
less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or
both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall
also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been
previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or
employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating
officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the
latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any
lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor
or priest or religiousminister chosen by him or any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring
privately with him, or from examining and treating him, or from
ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in
urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of not less than four (4) years, and a fine of Four
thousand pesos (P4,000.00).

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any
security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee
or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be
necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape.


SEC. 5. Repealing Clause. - Republic Act No. 857, as
amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential decrees,
executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or
modified accordingly.


SEC. 6. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen
(15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in
any daily newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines










RULE 113
Arrest
Section 1. Definition of arrest. — Arrest is the taking of a person into custody
in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (1)
Section 2. Arrest; how made. — An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a
person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The
person arrested shall not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for
his detention. (2a)
Section 3. Duty of arresting officer. — It shall be the duty of the officer
executing the warrant to arrest the accused and to deliver him to the nearest
police station or jail without unnecessary delay. (3a)
Section 4. Execution of warrant. — The head of the office to whom the
warrant of arrest was delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be
executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten (10) days after the
expiration of the period, the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall
make a report to the judge who issued the warrant. In case of his failure to
execute the warrant, he shall state the reasons therefor. (4a)
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; 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.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
(5a)
Section 6. Time of making arrest. — An arrest may be made on any day and
at any time of the day or night. (6)
Section 7. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant. — When making
an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be
arrested of the cause of the arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been
issued for his arrest, except when he flees or forcibly resists before the officer
has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will
imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at
the time of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires,
the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable. (7a)
Section 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. — When making an
arrest without a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of
his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in
the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission,
has escaped, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity so to
inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (8a)
Section 9. Method of arrest by private person. — When making an arrest, a
private person shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest
him and cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the
commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, or has
escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has
opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil
the arrest. (9a)
Section 10. Officer may summon assistance. — An officer making a lawful
arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist
him in effecting the arrest. Every person so summoned by an officer shall
assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without
detriment to himself. (10a)
Section 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. — An officer,
in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as
provided in section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where the
person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused
admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose. (11a)
Section 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure. — Whenever an
officer has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the preceding
section, he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate himself. (12a)
Section 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. — If a person lawfully arrested
escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately pursue or retake him
without a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines. (13)
Section 14. Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested. — Any
member of the Philippine Bar shall, at the request of the person arrested or of
another acting in his behalf, have the right to visit and confer privately with
such person in the jail or any other place of custody at any hour of the day or
night. Subject to reasonable regulations, a relative of the person arrested can
also exercise the same right. (14a)



RULE 126
Search and Seizure
Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an order in writing
issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court. (1)
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An
application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within
the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the
commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial
region where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall
only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. (n)
Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be
issued for the search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense;
or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense. (2a)
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall
not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense
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 things to be seized
which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (3a)
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before
issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions
and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their
sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (4a)
Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the judge is satisfied of
the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is
probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which
must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. (5a)
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if
refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his
purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a
house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or
liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
therein. (6)
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two
witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be
made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of
his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality. (7a)
Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct that it be
served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the
person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may
be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. (8)
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for
ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. (9a)
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing property
under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful
occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were
made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality,
leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. (10a)
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property
seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory
thereof duly verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing
judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him
to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the
judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been
complained with and shall require that the property seized be
delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof
has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the
custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein
the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been
used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant. (12a)
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where
to file. — A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence
obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the
action has been instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion
may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant.
However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is
subsequent filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter
court. (n)