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)

Once the judge issues the warrant of arrest, the head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for
execution has the duty to make sure the warrant is served within 10 days from its receipt. Once the period expires,
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.

The reason for the mandatory 10-day to execute and report after expiration of said 10 days is to hope that it would
remedy the delay in the disposition of criminal cases. But there is no penalty for the failure to serve the warrant of arrest in
the said period. However, be it noted that no time limit is fixed for validity of an arrest warrant; it is subsistent and
continues to be in force even if not served within the mandatory 10-days as long as it has not been recalled, or the person
named therein arrested or otherwise submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Case: People vs. Givera,

The Supreme Court held that the accused-appellant claims that his arrest at the East Avenue Medical Center on May 4,
1996 was made without a warrant. This is not true. He was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the court on April 27,
1995. However, as the records show, the warrant of arrest was returned unserved by the arresting officer on June 7, 1995
as accused-appellant could not be found. He was finally found only on May 4, 1996. Now, no alias warrant of arrest is
needed to make the arrest. Unless specifically provided in the warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is executed,
recalled or quashed. The ten-day period provided in Rule 113, Sec. 4 is only a directive to the officer executing the
warrant to make a return to the court.

Sec 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 paragraphs (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.

Burden of Proof
In the arrest of a person without a warrant, the burden of proof is with the person arresting or causing the arrest to
show that the arrest was lawful.

Rationale
“To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a
large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals facilitating their escape in
many instances.”
People v. Malasugui (63 Phil 221)

Note
The warrantless arrest must fall within the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5.
Alih v. Castro (151 SCRA 279)

Warrantless Arrest under Paragraph (a)

Elements
1. The person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and
2. Such is in the presence of the peace officer or private person to make the arrest.

“In the presence,” definition

“An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of the person making the arrest when he sees the offense,
although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof; or the
offense is continuing, or has been consummated, at the time the arrest is made.”
People v. Evaristo (216 SCRA 431)

People v. Caco, 222 SCRA 49:

Held: The arrest is valid. The legality and validity of the search and seizure is beyond dispute. Appellant was caught in
flagrante selling marijuana to the poseur-buyer. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, she could be, as
in fact she was, lawfully arrested without a warrant because she was then committing or has just committed a crime in the
presence of the policemen.

Warrantless Arrest under Paragraph (b)

Elements
1. An offense has just been committed
2. The person to make the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Held cases
People v. Malasuqui, 63 Phil 221:
Facts: A Chinese merchant was found lying on the ground with several wounds in the head. He received a wound on the
upper part of his forehead, and died as a result of this wound shortly afterward in the hospital. When Tan Why was found
on the morning in question, he was still alive and able to answer laconically "Kagui.” The appellant was known by this
name in the area, whereupon a lieutenant of the Constabulary ordered his immediate arrest.
Held: The arrest is valid. Peace officers may make arrests without judicial warrant, not only when a crime is committed or
about to be committed in their presence but also when there is reason to believe or sufficient ground to suspect that one
has been committed and that it was committed by the person arrested by them.

Immediacy between commission and arrest, significant

“There must now be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time of arrest. If
there be an appreciable time lapse between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be
secured.”

Personal knowledge, concept

“The person making the arrest must have personal knowledge of certain facts or circumstances indicating that the person
to be taken into custody has committed the offense.”

Alih v. Castro (151 SCRA 279)

“Personal knowledge must be based on probable cause which means ‘an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion.’ The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e.,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested.

“A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
peace officers making the arrest.”
Warrantless Arrest under Paragraph (c)

Elements:
1. The person to be arrested is a prisoner
2. Said prisoner escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or while he is being transferred from one place to another.
Founding principle
“At the time of arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of committing a crime, i.e., the evasion of service of
sentence.”

Parulan v. Director of Prisons (22 SCRA 638)

Facts: Petitioner was confined in the state penitentiary serving a sentence. He was then transferred to the military barracks
under the custody of the Stockade Officer of the said military barracks. In that month, while still serving his prison term as
aforesaid, he effected his escape from his confinement. Petitioner was recaptured.
Held: The arrest is valid. It may not be validly said that after the convict shall have escaped from the place of his
confinement the crime is fully consummated, for, as long as he continues to evade the service of his sentence, he is
deemed to continue committing the crime, and may be arrested without warrant, at any place where he may be found.
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court may be invoked in support of this conclusion, for, under section 6[c] thereof, one of
the instances when a person may be arrested without warrant is where he has escaped from confinement.

“The felon has no right to demand a warrant of arrest.” - Salonga v. Holland (76 Phil 412)

Persons authorized to conduct warrantless arrest

1. Private citizens
2. Peace officers:
a. Police officers (RA 6945)
b. NBI agents (RA 157)
c. Philippine Constabulary officers (Sec. 848, Administrative Code)
d. Municipal Mayors (US v. Vicentillo, 19 Phil 118)
e. Barangay captains (US v. Fortaleza, supra)

Arrests made by peace officers

“Unless acting in bad faith, they are not criminally liable even if in the process they have committed a mistake.”
Suarez v. Platon (69 Phil 556)

US v. Santos (36 Phil 853)

Facts: Dionisio Santos, a policeman, acting under the orders of his chief who desired to put a stop to pilfering in a certain
locality, patrolled this district, and about midnight, seeing two persons in front of an uninhabited house and then entering
an uninhabited camarin, arrested them without warrant, although no crime had been committed, and took them to the
municipal presidencia whereby they were detained in the jail for six or seven hours when they were released.
Held: The arrest is valid. One should however not expect too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to
exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has no opportunity to make proper investigation but must act
in haste on his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal. To err is human. Even the most conscientious officer must
at times be misled. If, therefore, under trying circumstances and in a zealous effort to obey the orders of his superior
officer and to enforce the law, a peace officer makes a mere mistake in good faith, he should be exculpated. Otherwise,
the courts will put a premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of themselves violating the law.

Duty of person making the arrest

Person arrested under par. (a) and (b), offense recognizable by RTC
Person must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and a complaint or information filed against him in
accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 112.
Person arrested under par. (a) and (b), offense recognizable by MTC
Person must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and the corresponding charge against him with the proper
court.
Person arrested a fugitive from justice
Person must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and notice of his apprehension and detention furnished to
the appropriate authorities.
Complaint must be filed within the periods provided for in Article 125, RPC, as amended by EO 272.