Week 1 - Arrest part 2 Flashcards
What happened in the case of Lim Sr. v. Felix GR 94054-57?
In the case of Lim v Felix, the SC nullified the warrants of arrest issued by the respondent judge because the latter merely relied upon (1) the determination of probable cause by the former judge; and (2) the certification issued by the prosecutor. The Constitution mandates personal determination by the judge who is to issue a warrant of arrest. In this case, the judge relied on a mere certification, not even any other supporting evidence.The SC reiterated its ruling in Soliven v Makasiar that the Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a commission for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal’s bare certification. All of these should be before the Judge.
Pangandaman v. Casar GR 71782, 1988
There is no requirement that the entire procedure for preliminary investigation must be completed before a warrant of arrest may be issued. What the Rule provides is that no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court may be filed without completing the procedure. But nowhere is it provided that the procedure must be completed before a warrant may issue.
De Lima v Guerrero GR 229781 (doctrine re: warrants of arrest)
For purposes of determining the propreity of the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of the guilt of the accused. She is given wide latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. A finding of probable cause to order the accused’s arrest does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
De Lima v Guerrero GR 229781 (doctrine re: probable cause)
Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. (Estrada v Ombudsman)
Pagalunan v. Albior GR 75034 (doctrine re: waiver of right to counsel)
Accused Albior was made to sign a document under the promise that he would be relased from custody if he signs it. The document was a confession but he did not understand Tagalog, the dialect in which the confession was written. The SC held that his waiver of right to counsel was invalidly waived. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible evidence.
Rule 113. Sec. 10. Officer may summon assistance
Rule 113. Sec. 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.
How many persons can the arresting officer summon for assistance?
The officer may summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. (Rule 113 Sec 10)
When may a person summoned decline from giving assistance?
When rendering assistance would cause detriment to himself. Under Rule 113 Sec 10, every person so summoned by an officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself.
Rule 113 Sec 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure.
Rule 113. Sec. 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.
When may an arresting officer break into a building or enclosure?
Under Rule 113 Sec 11, an officer may break into a building or enclosure when: (1) he is making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in Sec 5 Rule 113; (2) the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be in the building or enclosure; and (3) he is refused admittance to the building, after announcing his authority and purpose.
Rule 113 Sec 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure.
Rule 113 Sec 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure.– Whenver an officer has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate himself.
What is a pre-trial?
A pre-trial is a process whereby the accused and the prosecutors in a criminal case work out, usually at the arraignment stage, a naturally satisfactory disposition of a case subject to court approval in order to expedite the trial of the case (Black’s Law Dictionary; Part VI Sec. 1 National Prosecution Service Manual)
Is pre-trial mandatory?
Yes. The conduct of a pre-trial conference is mandatory in all criminal cases (Sec. 1 par. 1 Rule 118 ROC; SC Circular No 39-98)
When is pre-trial conference scheduled?
The pre-trial conference is scheduled after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference (Sec 1 par 1 Rule 118, ROC)
People v Tudtud GR 144037 (doctrine re: arrest and search)
Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reveresed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
