Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that the person charged was guilty of the crime

crime for
that he may be bound to answer for the commission of which he was prosecuted.
an offense (Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court). The determination of probable cause needs only to
rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a
 An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a
crime has been committed and there is enough
person to be arrested, or by his submission to
reason to believe that it was committed by the
the custody of the person making the arrest. accused.  It need not be based on clear and
24

No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt
making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be
subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his The determination of probable cause does not call for
detention (Section 2, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court). the application of rules and standards of proof that a
judgment of conviction requires after trial on the
It shall be the duty of the officer executing the warrant merits. As implied by the words themselves, "probable
to arrest the accused and deliver him to the nearest cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or
police station or jail without unnecessary delay (Section even moral certainty. The prosecution need not
3, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court). present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably
It should be done pursuant to a warrant of arrest. prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge
after a full-blown trial.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable Section 4. Execution of warrant. — The head of the
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or execution shall cause the warrant to be executed
warrant of arrest shall issue, except upon probable within ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten (10)
cause to be determined personally by a judge, after days after the expiration of the period, the officer to
whom it was assigned for execution shall make a
examination under oath or affirmation of the report to the judge who issued the warrant. In case of
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, his failure to execute the warrant, he shall state the
particularly describing the place to be searched, or the reasons therefor. (4a)
persons or things to be seized (Section 2, Article III,
1987 Philippine Constitution). Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A
peace officer or a private person may, without a
Any evidence obtained (thereby) shall be inadmissible warrant, arrest a person:
for any purpose in any proceeding (Second paragraph
of Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Philippine (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
Constitution).
committing, or is attempting to commit an
Requisites for the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest / offense;
SearchWarrant:
(b) When an offense has just been committed,
1. There must be probable cause and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or
2. Determination of probable cause by the judge
circumstances that the person to be arrested
3. Probable cause is determined after examination has committed it; and
under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce. (c) When the person to be arrested is a
4. There must be particularity of the description of prisoner who has escaped from a penal
the place to be searched and the persons or establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined while
things to be seized.
his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to
Unilever v. Tan Probable cause has been defined as another.
the existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting
on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
Section 6. Time of making arrest 3. File a petition for issuance of writ of amparo,
pursuant to A.M. No. 7-12-9-SC;
Section 7. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of
warrant. — When making an arrest by virtue of a 4. Motion to quash the information under Section 3 (c),
warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
arrested of the cause of the arrest and of the fact that
a warrant has been issued for his arrest,  5. Refuse to enter a plea during arraignment (Section 1
[c], Rule 116 of the Rules of Court).
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,

Section 9. Method of arrest by private person. —

When making an arrest, a private person shall inform Soliven V. Makasiar
the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him
and cause of the arrest, (1) WON petitioners were denied due process

Section 10. Officer may summon assistance. (2) WOT whether or not the constitutional rights of
Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge
Section 11. Right of officer to break into building or issued a warrant for his arrest without personally
enclosure examining the complainant and the witnesses,
Section 12. Right to break out from building or (3) WON the President of the Philippines, under the
enclosure. Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings

Section 13. Arrest after escape or rescue March 30, 1988: SOJ denied motion for reconsideration
upholding the soj sustaining the city fiscal’s prima facie
Section 14. Right of attorney or relative to visit case
person arrested.
April 7, 1988 2nd filingof motion for reconsideration
EXCUSIONARY RULE Sec. 23, Rule 114. Arrest of
May 2, 1988. President through ES affirmed resolution
accused out on bail. – For the purpose of surrendering
of SOJ
the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon
written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the May 16, motion was denied
undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police officer
or any other person of suitable age and discretion. (1) whether or not petitioners were denied due
process when informations for libel were filed
Sec. 26, Rule 114. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal against them although the finding of the
arrest, lack of orirregular preliminary investigation.
existence of a prima facie case was still under
Provided that he raises them before entering his plea.
review by the Secretary of Justice and,
Remedies against an unlawful arrest: subsequently, by the President;

 . Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code

(2) whether or not the constitutional rights of
(arbitrary detention- Any public officer or
Beltran were violated when respondent
employee who, without legal grounds, detains a
person, shall suffer:) , or
RTC judge Ramon makasiar issued a warrant for
 Article 267 (kidnapping and illegal serious his arrest without personally examining the
detention) of the Revised Penal Code; complainant and the witnesses, if any, to
determine probable cause; and
2. File a petition for habeas corpus, pursuant to Rule
102 of the Rules of Court; (3) whether or not the President of the
Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate
criminal proceedings against the petitioners
through the filing of a complaint-affidavit. (3) The rationale for the grant to the President of
the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure
the exercise of Presidential duties and functions
Held: free from any hindrance or distraction,
considering that being the Chief Executive of the
(1) The allegation of denial of due process of law Government is a job that, aside from requiring all
in the preliminary investigation is negated by the of the office holder's time, also demands
fact that instead of submitting his counter- undivided attention.
affidavits, he filed a "Motion to Declare
Proceedings Closed," in effect waiving his right to But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains
refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits. to the President by virtue of the office and may
Due process of law does not require that the be invoked only by the holder of the office; not
respondent in a criminal case actually file his by any other person in the President's behalf.
counter-affidavits before Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the
the preliminary investigation is deemed President is complainant cannot raise the
completed. All that is required is that the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the
respondent be given the opportunity to submit case from proceeding against such accused.
counter-affidavits if he is so minded.
Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would
prevent the President from waiving the privilege.
(2) What the Constitution underscores is the Thus, if so minded the President may shed the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the protection afforded by the privilege and submit
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether
probable cause. In satisfying himself of the to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the
existence of probable cause for the issuance of a President's prerogative. It is a decision that
warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to cannot be assumed and imposed by any other
personally examine the complainant and his person.
witnesses. Following established doctrine and
procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the (4) Court reiterates that it is not a trier of
report and the supporting documents submitted facts. Court finds no basis at this stage to rule on
by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable the “chilling effect” point. (Soliven vs. Makasiar,
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988)
of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's
Finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to
report and require the submission of excess or lack ofjurisdiction on the part of the public
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in respondents,
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
Microsoft v. Maxicorp
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise
judges would be unduly laden with July 25, 1996: NBI Dominador Samiano filed several
the preliminary examination and investigation of searchwarrants in the RTC for maxicorp
criminal complaints instead of concentrating on
Same day – Judge William M. Bayhon 96-451-454
hearing and deciding cases filed before their
courts. Sec 29 of PD 49 – copyright infringement
 Art 189 RPC – unfair competition Sacriz, admitted that he did not buy counterfeit
goods from Maxicorp. We rule that the Court of
CA – sold under Samiano aka Joel Diaz
Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s findings.
Saimano - display and offer for sale counterfeit   The offense charged against Maxicorp is copyright
software in its premises. counterfeit software were infringement under Section 29 of PD 49 and
produced and packaged within Maxicorp's premises. unfair competition under Article 189 of the
RPC. To support these charges, petitioners
Computer technician Pante - demonstrated to the presented the testimonies of NBI Agent
judge the presence of petitioners' software on the same Samiano, computer technician Pante, and
computer unit. Sacriz, a civilian. The offenses that petitioners
charged Maxicorp contemplate several overt
John Benedict Sacriz - installed petitioners' software acts. The sale of counterfeit products is but
into computers it had assembled. sale of petitioners' one of these acts. Both NBI Agent Samiano
software within Maxicorp's premises. Petitioners never and Sacriz related to the RTC how they
authorized Maxicorp to install or sell their software. personally saw Maxicorp commit acts of
infringement and unfair competition.
Microsoft Corp.vs. Maxicorp Inc.,GR No.
  During the preliminary examination, the RTC
140946, Sept. 13, 2004
subjected the testimonies of the witnesses to
    WHETHER THE PETITION RAISES QUESTIONS
the requisite examination. NBI Agent Samiano
OF LAW; Indeed, this case falls under one of
testified that he saw Maxicorp display and offer
the exceptions because the findings of the
for sale counterfeit software in its premises. He
Court of Appeals conflict with the findings of
also saw how the counterfeit software were
the RTC.[16] Since petitioners properly raised
produced and packaged within Maxicorp’s
the conflicting findings of the lower courts, it is
premises.  NBI Agent Samiano categorically
proper for this Court to resolve such
stated that he was certain the products were
contradiction.
counterfeit because Maxicorp sold them to its
    WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE LEGAL
customers without giving the accompanying
PERSONALITY  TO    FILE  THE PETITION:
ownership manuals, license agreements and
We ruled in Columbia Pictures Entertainment,
certificates of authenticity.
Inc. v. Court of Appeals[18] that the petitioner-
  Sacriz testified that during his visits to Maxicorp,
complainant in a petition for review under Rule
he witnessed several instances when Maxicorp
45 could argue its case before this Court in lieu
installed petitioners’ software into computers it
of the Solicitor General if there is grave error
had assembled.  Sacriz also testified that he
committed by the lower court or lack of due
saw the sale of petitioners’ software within
process. This avoids a situation where a
Maxicorp’s premises.  Petitioners never
complainant who actively participated in the
authorized Maxicorp to install or sell their
prosecution of a case would suddenly find itself
software.
powerless to pursue a remedy due to
  The testimonies of these two witnesses, coupled
circumstances beyond its control. The
with the object and documentary evidence they
circumstances in Columbia Pictures
presented, are sufficient to establish the
Entertainment are sufficiently similar to the
existence of probable cause.  From what they
present case to warrant the application of this
have witnessed, there is reason to believe that
doctrine.
Maxicorp engaged in copyright infringement
    WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO
and unfair competition to the prejudice of
ISSUE THE  SEARCH  WARRANTS: The
petitioners. Both NBI Agent Samiano and
Court of Appeals based its reversal on two
Sacriz were clear and insistent that the
factual findings of the RTC.  First, the fact that
counterfeit software were not only displayed
the sales receipt presented by NBI Agent
and sold within Maxicorp’s premises, they were
Samiano as proof that he bought counterfeit
also produced, packaged and in some cases,
goods from Maxicorp was in the name of a
installed there.
certain “Joel Diaz.” Second, the fact that
  For purposes of determining probable cause, the
petitioners’ other witness, John Benedict
sales receipt is not the only proof that the sale
 of petitioners’ software occurred.  During the or not. Neither does it limit the seizure to
search warrant application proceedings, products used in copyright infringement or
NBI Agent Samiano presented to the judge unfair competition.
the computer unit that he purchased from   All articles seized under paragraph (c) of the
Maxicorp, in which computer unit Maxicorp search warrants, not falling under paragraphs
had pre-installed petitioners’ software.[27] a, b, d, e or f, are ordered returned to
Sacriz, who was present when NBI Agent Maxicorp, Inc. immediately.
Samiano purchased the computer unit,
affirmed that NBI Agent Samiano purchased
Pp vs CA – Judge Marciano Bacalla Br 216, rtc – qc, Dec
the computer unit.[28] Pante, the computer
technician, demonstrated to the judge the 15, 1995
presence of petitioners’ software on the Abegail’s Variety store criminal case Br 80, rtc - bulacan
same computer unit.[29] There was a
comparison between petitioners’ genuine Search warrant Azfar Hussain and 3 other Pakistanis..
software and Maxicorp’s software pre- seizure of their personal belongings, papers and effects,
installed in the computer unit that NBI i.e. dynamite sticks, plastic explosives, fragmentation
Agent Sambiano purchased.[30] Even if we grenade and high powered =rearms and ammunitions.
disregard the sales receipt issued in the name
of “Joel Diaz,” which petitioners explained was Typographical error in the 2 search warrants. one at
the alias NBI Agent Samiano used in the "No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City," and the other
operation, there still remains more than at "784 Units C & D,RMS Building, Quezon Avenue,
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause What is material in determining the validity of a search
for the issuance of the search warrants.
is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the
    The fact that Sacriz did not actually purchase
applicants had in their thoughts, or had represented in
counterfeit software from Maxicorp does not
the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the
eliminate the existence of probable cause.
Copyright infringement and unfair competition warrant.
are not limited to the act of selling counterfeit The particularization of the description of the place to
goods. They cover a whole range of acts, from be searched may properly be done only by the Judge,
copying, assembling, packaging to marketing, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the
including the mere offering for sale of the discretion of the police officers conducting the search.
counterfeit goods.  The clear and firm
testimonies of petitioners’ witnesses on such Dec 14, 1995, S/Insp PNP James Brillantes applied for
other acts stand untarnished search warrant before Branch 261, RTC of Quezon City
    WHETHER THE SEARCH WARRANTS ARE against Mr. Azfar Hussain, who had allegedly in his
“GENERAL WARRANTS.”: However, we find possession =rearms and explosives at Abigail Variety
paragraph (c) of the search warrants lacking in Store, Apt. 1207 Area F, Bagong Buhay Avenue, Sapang
particularity. Paragraph (c) states: c)    Sundry Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan."
items such as labels, boxes, prints, packages,
wrappers, receptacles, advertisements and Dec 15, J Bacalla issued search warrant 1068 95 at apt.
other paraphernalia bearing the copyrights 1..
and/or trademarks owned by MICROSOFT
Dec 19- return was made
CORPORATION;
    The scope of this description is all-embracing Jan 22, 1996. Pleaded not guilty.
since it covers property used for personal or
other purposes not related to copyright Jan 29, ocular inspection
infringement or unfair competition. Moreover,
Feb 9- granting motion to quash
the description covers property that Maxicorp
may have bought legitimately from Microsoft or Feb 12- concomitant motion to dismiss
its licensed distributors.   Paragraph (c) simply
calls for the seizure of all items bearing the Feb 19- asst. provincial pros. Reconsideration for quash
Microsoft logo, whether legitimately possessed
Feb 27 – respondents filed opposition comments personae such as will enable the officer to identify the
accused.
May 28- judge denied reconsideration

June 11 – extremely urgent motion to quash

The search was not accomplished in the presence of the

lawful

 occupants of the place (herein private SEARCH ON THE CAR THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE
respondents) or any member of the family, said PLACEDESCRIBED IN THE WARRANT TO BE SEARCHED
occupants being handcuffed and immobilized in WAS ILLEGAL; To be valid, such warrantless search must
the living room at the time. The search was thus be limited to that point within the reach or control of
done in violation of the law. the person arrested, or that which may furnish him with
 The articles seized were not brought to the the means of committing violence or of escaping. Honda
court within 48 hours as required by the Civic car bearing Plate No. WCP 157,
warrant itself; "(i)n fact the return was done
Oct 3, 1998. Timothy and sun tee have shabu in manila:
after 3 days or 77 hours from service, in
violation of Section 11, Rule 126 of the Rules of  1 sealed plastic bag of 234.5 grams of shabu
Court."  4 sealed bags of crystalline substance 6.2 grams
 motion to quash a search warrant and a motion  16 bags of substance 20.3673 grams worth 261
to suppress evidence are alternative and not gm
cumulative remedies.  Improvised toother
 the search warrant was applied for in, and
issued by, Branch 216 of the Regional Trial During arraignment, pleaded not guilty for the ff facts
Court at Quezon City, and the return was made 1. authencity of the ff docu
to said court. On the other hand, the criminal Letter of PSI Martin to conduct examine
action in connection with the explosives subject Cert issued by the chemist that its positive
of the warrant was =led in Branch 80 of the Dangerous drugs act report
Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. 2 existence of 1 plastic bags
3 chemist Loreto Bravo has no personal knowledge as to
the source
Pp. v. Tiu won chua / timothy tiu and Qui 4. wrong name
yaling y chua/sun tee sy y chua
Witness: spo1 de leon, po2 santilan, po3 amurao.
Dangerous drugs act of 1971, as amended by ra 7659. Drug related activities in HCl building in binondo and
surveyed in oct 2-5, 1998.
Valid warrant Oct 6, 10pm test buy operation worth 2K
 Probable cause Oct 9. Makasiar issued search warrant
 And be determined by the judge Oct 12 conducted operation w/ Noel Olarte blg coord
 Must examine under oath or affirmation the and wife, Joji
witnesses
 Warrant must describe the place 2 be searched Both denied bec the are engaged in jewelry business
and the persons or things to seized Timothy – RP w/ 500k sec 16 and 20 of ra 6425, am
7659
Mistake of name of the accused does not invalidate Sun – pris correc to pris mayor
the search warrant if the place to be search is properly
described. especially since in this case, the authorities PP v. Priscilla del Norte
had personal knowledge of the drug-related activities of
 RTC of Caloocan, br 28 guilty of illegal poss of
the accused. In fact, a "John Doe" warrant satisfies the
drugs.. Sec. 8, Art. II, R.A. 6425,
requirements so long as it contains a description
  6748 gm Marijuana confiscated in favor of govt Amelia Roque/Ka Nelia- PD 1866 at the time of
 Priscilla transferred to correctional apprehension, in possession of ammunitions
without license to possess them.
August 1, 1997 search warrant to Ising Guttierez Diwa, Anti subversion act
No. 275 North Service Road corner Cruzada St., Bagong
Barrio, Caloocan City, hid 5 bundles of marijuana under Wilfredo buenaobra – anti subversion act
her bed. Because no means of livelihood.
the arrest of Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon CasipleThe

Assailed the validity bec. She lives in baesa and only

visiting friend Marlyn to borrow money, marlin was out,
Casiple, without warrant, is also justi;ed under the rules.
so she waited . policemen said we got ising. He sister .
Both are admittedly members of the standing
Christine, daughter of 8 childrn of appellant. School ID
committee of the NUFC and, when apprehended in the
and rental receipt.
house of Renato Constantino, they had a bag containing
subversive materials, and both carried ; firearms and
Contends that her mere presence does not auto make
ammunition for which they had no license to possess or
her owner . SG cited case of United States vs. GanLian
carry.
Po, 20 that when illegal drugs are found in the premises
occupied by a certain person, such person is presumed rule is, that if a person alleged to be restrained of his
to be in possession of the prohibited articles. It then liberty is in the custody of an officer under process
becomes the accused's burden to prove the absence of issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge
animus possidendi.(intent to possess) had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order,
or if such person is charged before any court, the writ of
Presumed innocent until prven guilty beyond habeas corpus will not be allowed.
reasonable doubt

Umil v Ramos
June 27, 1988. Rogelio Ramos

Ka mong- commu and transpo

Ka Nelia - finance
Ka Miller – courier from sorsogon
Ka ted – Domingo Anuevo
Ka totoy – Ramon Casiple
Villaluz Compung, Marikina heights – safehouse Renato
Constantino
Aug. 12, 1988, search warrant J Eutropio Migrino, RTC
Pasig at 5pm
a) One (1 ) Colt M1 6A1 long rifle with defaced serial
number;
b) One (1) Cal. .380 ACT/9mm Model PPK 8 SN: 260577
& 2605778;
c) Two (2) fragmentation hand grenades;
d) Fifty-six (56) live ammunition for Cal. 5.56mm;
e) Five (5) live ammunition for Cal. .380;
f) One (1) ICOM VHF FM Radio Transceiver SN: 14903
g) One (1) Regulated power supply 220V AC;
h) One (1) Antennae (adjustable);
i) One (1 ) Speaker with cord ALEXAR;
j) Voluminous Subversive documents.