Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure governs arrest—what it is, who may make it, how it must be carried out, and the safeguards that protect the person being arrested. Within Rule 113, the heart of “arrest without warrant” is the rule’s limited exceptions to the constitutional preference for arrests by warrant.

This article explains what Rule 113 allows and forbids, especially on warrantless arrests, the tests for validity, and the practical consequences when an arrest is unlawful.

1) The constitutional backdrop: why warrants are the default

The Constitution protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures (including arrest). As a rule:

A person should be arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge upon a finding of probable cause.
Warrantless arrests are treated as exceptions, and exceptions are strictly construed.

Rule 113 is the procedural rule that implements these principles in day-to-day law enforcement, while still recognizing that some situations demand immediate action.

2) What “arrest” means under Rule 113

Rule 113 defines arrest as taking a person into custody so that the person may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.

An arrest happens in either of two ways:

Actual restraint (physical control, such as handcuffing, holding, or otherwise depriving liberty), or
Submission to custody (the person yields to the authority of the arresting person).

Rule 113 also commands that:

No violence or unnecessary force be used; and
The arrestee must not be subjected to greater restraint than necessary for detention.

3) General rule vs. exception: when a warrant is not required

General rule

A peace officer arrests by virtue of a judicial warrant.

Exception: Rule 113, Section 5 — Arrest without warrant; when lawful

Rule 113 authorizes warrantless arrest only in carefully defined circumstances. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest:

In flagrante delicto (caught in the act)
Hot pursuit (just-committed offense + probable cause based on personal knowledge)
Escapee (escaped prisoner)

These are not “guidelines”—they are elements that must be satisfied. If the facts do not fit one of these categories, the arrest is unlawful.

4) The three lawful warrantless arrests under Section 5

A. In flagrante delicto arrest (Section 5[a]): “caught in the act”

Rule concept: A warrant is unnecessary when the arresting person personally perceives the suspect committing (or attempting) a crime.

Elements (practical test):

The person to be arrested commits, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and
The offense occurs in the presence of the arresting officer/private person.

“In the presence” does not demand the officer’s eyes literally see every detail; it is commonly understood as within the arrestor’s sensory perception (e.g., seeing, hearing, immediately perceiving facts). But the key is still personal perception of criminal acts, not rumors.

Critical limitation: overt act requirement Philippine jurisprudence has repeatedly stressed that mere suspicion is not enough. There must be an overt act indicating that the suspect is committing or attempting a crime—behavior that is clearly linked to the offense, not merely “looking suspicious,” “standing around,” or “acting nervously.”

Common valid examples:

The officer sees a person assaulting someone.
The officer witnesses an ongoing theft.
The officer personally observes an actual drug sale in a buy-bust operation (properly conducted).

Common invalid examples (typical reasons arrests get struck down):

Acting “suspicious,” “fidgety,” “trying to leave,” or “looking around” without an overt criminal act.
Arrest based only on an anonymous tip, without officers personally witnessing acts constituting a crime.

B. Hot pursuit arrest (Section 5[b]): “just been committed”

This is the most litigated and misunderstood category.

Rule concept: A warrant is unnecessary when an offense has just happened and the arresting officer has a solid factual basis—based on personal knowledge—to believe a particular person did it.

Elements:

An offense has just been committed; and
The arresting officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed it, based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances.

1) “Just been committed”

This is about recency and immediacy. The closer in time to the crime, the stronger the justification. The longer the delay, the harder it is to defend the arrest without a warrant.

There is no universal clock-rule (e.g., “within X hours”), but courts evaluate whether the situation still has the urgency and continuity that makes a warrant impractical.

2) “Personal knowledge” does not mean “personal witness”

Officers need not have personally seen the crime. But “personal knowledge” is not satisfied by bare hearsay or a vague report. It typically requires that, immediately after the crime, officers:

personally perceive facts and circumstances pointing to the suspect (e.g., injuries, physical evidence, demeanor, scene conditions, witness identification given directly to them, a chase or trail of events), and
can articulate a coherent basis for probable cause.

A purely second-hand tip with no confirming circumstances is usually insufficient.

C. Escapee arrest (Section 5[c]): escaped prisoner

Rule concept: A person who has escaped from:

a penal establishment (serving final judgment), or
a place of temporary confinement (case pending), or
while being transferred,

may be arrested without warrant.

This exception rests on the idea that the person is already under lawful custody and has unlawfully broken it.

5) Who can arrest without a warrant: peace officers and private persons

Rule 113 recognizes that private persons may make warrantless arrests in the same three Section 5 situations. This is the Philippine form of “citizen’s arrest.”

But the risks are higher for private persons:

A private person who arrests outside the strict Section 5 grounds may face criminal, civil, and administrative consequences (e.g., unlawful arrest, illegal detention, damages).

Practical safeguard: a private person who performs a citizen’s arrest should deliver the arrested person to proper authorities without delay and avoid unnecessary force.

6) How a warrantless arrest must be carried out (procedural safeguards)

Even when Section 5 allows a warrantless arrest, Rule 113 requires the arrest to follow lawful method and restraint.

A. Informing the arrestee

As a rule, the arresting officer should:

identify authority (as a peace officer), and
state the cause of arrest.

Exceptions are recognized in situations where:

the person is caught in the act,
the person is pursued immediately after the offense,
the person forcibly resists or tries to escape, or
giving notice is impractical or increases danger.

B. No unnecessary force; proportional restraint

Rule 113 explicitly prohibits:

violence or unnecessary force, and
restraints beyond what detention requires.

This matters because excessive force can trigger:

criminal liability,
administrative sanctions, and
civil damages.

C. Entry into buildings / breaking in or out

Rule 113 recognizes limited authority for arresting officers to:

break into a building/enclosure to make an arrest (typically after announcing authority and purpose and being refused entry), and
break out if necessary to free themselves or effect the arrest, under conditions recognized by the rule.

These are intrusive powers and are scrutinized closely, especially when the arrest itself is contested.

7) Search incident to lawful arrest: the crucial link

A major practical consequence of a lawful warrantless arrest is the allowance of a search incident to lawful arrest (SILA).

Core idea: If (and only if) the arrest is lawful, officers may search:

the person arrested, and
the area within the arrestee’s immediate control (where the person might access a weapon or destroy evidence).

Limits:

It is not a license for a general exploratory search of an entire home, vehicle, or neighborhood.
The search must be tied to officer safety and evidence preservation within the arrestee’s reach.

Key consequence: If the arrest is unlawful, a search justified as “incident to arrest” collapses with it, and the seized items are vulnerable to exclusion under the constitutional rule against unreasonable searches and seizures.

8) Warrantless arrest vs. stop-and-frisk vs. checkpoints (common confusion)

These often appear in the same fact patterns but are legally distinct:

Warrantless arrest (Rule 113, Sec. 5): requires one of the three categories (in flagrante, hot pursuit, escapee).
Stop-and-frisk: generally a limited protective search for weapons based on a genuine, articulable suspicion of danger; it is not automatically an arrest.
Checkpoints: may be lawful as minimal intrusion for public safety, but escalation to a search/arrest requires a stronger legal basis (e.g., probable cause, plain view, consent, or a lawful arrest).

In litigation, “we were at a checkpoint” does not by itself validate a warrantless arrest. The arrest still must meet Section 5.

9) What happens after a warrantless arrest: inquest, charging, and detention limits

A. Inquest vs. regular preliminary investigation

When a person is lawfully arrested without warrant and is detained, the case is typically routed to an inquest prosecutor (a summary determination of probable cause for filing in court), unless the person opts for/requests a regular preliminary investigation under the rules.

B. Constitutional and statutory time limits on detention

Even with a lawful warrantless arrest, detention is constrained by rules such as:

the requirement to deliver detained persons to proper judicial authorities without delay, and
criminal liability for unlawful delay in delivery (often discussed in relation to the Revised Penal Code’s provisions on detention).

Special laws may create special regimes for particular offenses, but constitutional protections remain the baseline.

C. Rights upon arrest and custodial investigation

Separate from Rule 113, arrested persons have strong protections under:

the Constitution (right to remain silent, right to counsel, prohibition on torture/coercion), and
statutes like R.A. 7438 (rights of persons arrested/detained/custodial investigation, including visitation and counsel).

Rule 113 also recognizes the importance of access—e.g., allowing visits by counsel or relatives under conditions provided by the rule and related laws.

10) If the warrantless arrest is illegal: legal consequences and remedies

A. Does an illegal arrest automatically dismiss the case?

Not necessarily. A frequent Philippine doctrine is:

Illegality of arrest does not automatically void the filing of the case or the court’s jurisdiction over the offense once information is filed and the accused appears.
However, it can materially affect:
- the admissibility of evidence obtained from the arrest/search, and
- potential liabilities of arresting officers.

B. Waiver: the timing trap

Objections to the manner of arrest are generally required to be raised at the earliest opportunity, typically before arraignment. If the accused proceeds without timely objection (e.g., enters a plea), courts often treat defects in arrest as waived.

This does not “legalize” the arrest retroactively, but it can bar later procedural challenges to jurisdiction over the person.

C. Suppression of evidence (exclusionary rule)

Even if waiver issues arise, illegally obtained evidence may still be challenged under constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence seized as a result of an unlawful arrest/search can be excluded, along with derivative evidence, depending on the facts.

D. Possible actions against erring officers

Depending on circumstances, arresting officers may face:

criminal complaints (e.g., unlawful arrest, illegal detention, violations tied to custodial rights),
administrative proceedings (police disciplinary mechanisms), and
civil liability for damages.

E. Habeas corpus

When detention is alleged to be unlawful (especially where no valid ground exists), a petition for habeas corpus can be a remedy to test the legality of restraint of liberty—subject to doctrinal limits when a valid charge or judicial process intervenes.

11) A practical validity checklist (Section 5)

When evaluating a warrantless arrest, the analysis almost always reduces to structured questions:

Step 1: Which Section 5 category is being invoked?

In flagrante (caught in act)?
Hot pursuit (just committed + personal knowledge)?
Escapee?

If none clearly applies, the arrest is presumptively unlawful.

Step 2: Are the required elements present—on specific, articulable facts?

Overt act for in flagrante?
Recency (“just committed”) for hot pursuit?
Personal knowledge (facts perceived/learned directly in a reliable, immediate way), not mere rumor?
Probable cause (reasonable belief grounded in facts), not hunch?

Step 3: Were Rule 113 safeguards followed?

identification and cause stated when required/feasible
no unnecessary force
proper turnover to authorities
custodial rights observed

12) Why Rule 113 is “strict” in warrantless arrest cases

Warrantless arrests sit at the point where law enforcement necessity meets constitutional liberty. Courts require strict compliance because:

arrest is a direct restraint on liberty,
warrantless arrests bypass judicial pre-screening, and
warrantless arrests often become the gateway to searches and seizures.

Rule 113, Section 5 is therefore not a flexible standard—it is a tight set of exceptions with demanding factual predicates.

13) Key takeaways

Warrant is the rule; warrantless arrest is the exception.
Rule 113 allows warrantless arrest only for:
1. in flagrante delicto,
2. hot pursuit, or
3. escapee situations.
“Suspicion” is not enough; courts look for overt acts, recency, personal knowledge, and probable cause grounded in facts.
A lawful warrantless arrest can justify a search incident to lawful arrest; an unlawful arrest can jeopardize evidence.
Challenges must be timely; defects in arrest can be waived, but constitutional objections to unlawful searches/seizures remain pivotal.
Rule 113 works alongside constitutional rights and custodial-investigation protections (including rights to counsel and against coercion).