Warrants are the constitutional norm. Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution protects persons from unreasonable seizures, and the Rules of Court (Rule 113) require an arrest warrant issued upon probable cause by a judge—unless one of the narrow exceptions applies. This article unpacks those exceptions, the doctrines that shape them, and practical illustrations drawn from common fact patterns.

The Three Textbook Exceptions (Rule 113, §5)

Under Rule 113, Section 5, a peace officer or a private person may effect a warrantless arrest only in these situations:

In flagrante delicto
- Elements:
  - The person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and
  - The act is committed in the presence of the arresting officer/private person (i.e., perceived through the senses—sight, hearing, smell—at the time).
- Core idea: There must be an overt act that clearly indicates a crime is occurring now (or has just been attempted/consummated right before the officer).
Hot pursuit
- Elements:
  - An offense has in fact just been committed; and
  - The arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested committed it.
- Core idea: There must be immediacy (temporal proximity) and specific, articulable facts linking the suspect to the offense—not mere rumor or anonymous tips.
Escapee (fugitive from custody)
- Covers:
  - A person who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment;
  - A person temporarily confined while a case is pending; or
  - A person who escaped during transfer.
- Core idea: The escape itself authorizes immediate arrest without a warrant.

Private persons may also arrest under any of the three grounds above, but they bear the same burden of showing the exception strictly applies.

Beyond §5: Doctrines Often Confused with Warrantless Arrests

These doctrines frequently appear alongside §5 arrests, but serve different functions. Knowing how they interact can make or break a motion to suppress.

A. Stop-and-Frisk (Terry-type frisk)

What it is: A brief, investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, coupled with a limited pat-down for weapons if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous.
Not an arrest by itself. If contraband is felt and its incriminating character is immediately apparent (without manipulation), seizure may follow; probable cause may then ripen for an arrest.
Limits: Mere “bad looks,” presence in a “high-crime area,” or vague tips do not justify a frisk. There must be specific, observable behavior suggesting criminality and danger.

B. Checkpoints

General rule: Constitutionally permissible when conducted in a least-intrusive manner (visual search, questions) for legitimate public interests (e.g., road safety, anti-crime).
Escalation: From routine stop to search/arrest requires probable cause developing on the scene (e.g., plain-view contraband, suspicious behavior creating specific grounds).

C. Buy-Bust / Entrapment

Entrapment (lawful): Officers may afford an opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime (e.g., illegal drug sale). If the suspect freely does so, the in flagrante ground is triggered the moment the sale is consummated or attempted.
Instigation (unlawful): If law enforcers originate the criminal design and induce an otherwise innocent person to commit it, arrest and evidence are vulnerable.

“Presence,” “Personal Knowledge,” and “Just Been Committed”: What They Really Mean

Presence: The officer (or private person) perceives the crime through the senses as it unfolds—seeing a hand-to-hand drug sale, hearing a gunshot then seeing the shooter with smoking gun seconds later, or smelling burning marijuana while witnessing an overt act.
Personal knowledge (hot pursuit): More than hearsay; typically arises from fresh, corroborated facts the officer personally gathered immediately after the crime (e.g., eyewitness descriptions, physical traces, CCTV viewed right away), creating probable cause pointing to a specific person.
“Just been committed”: The time gap is short. The longer the delay, the weaker the hot-pursuit justification. Hours may pass in some scenarios if officers are in continuous pursuit, but “the sooner, the safer.”

Practical, Bar-Style Examples

In flagrante delicto (clear overt act)
- Example: A police officer sees X pull a phone from Y’s pocket and run. The officer chases and arrests X.
- Why valid: Theft committed in the officer’s presence via a visible overt act.
In flagrante delicto (attempt)
- Example: Officer sees X inserting a homemade key into a parked car’s door at 1:00 a.m., nervously scanning the street.
- Why valid: Attempt to commit theft observed; overt acts are contemporaneous.
Hot pursuit (robbery “just committed”)
- Example: Minutes after a convenience store robbery, the clerk tells officers the suspect wore a red jacket, black cap, fled east on a motorcycle with partial plate “123.” Two blocks away, officers spot X—red jacket, black cap—on a motorcycle matching the partial plate. They stop and arrest him.
- Why valid: The offense has in fact just been committed, and officers have personal knowledge of specific facts linking X.
Hot pursuit (insufficient personal knowledge)
- Example: Anonymous caller says “X stabbed Y; he’s at the market.” Officers go to the market and arrest X without seeing anything suspicious and without confirming details.
- Why invalid: Tip alone without corroboration is not personal knowledge.
Escapee
- Example: Officers receive a radio report that a detainee escaped from a court lockup minutes ago; they encounter someone in handcuffs still wearing the detainee’s ID. Arrest follows.
- Why valid: Escape authorizes warrantless arrest.
Stop-and-frisk ripening into arrest
- Example: Officer sees X pacing outside a jewelry store at closing, repeatedly gripping his waistband bulge, scanning for guards, then approaching the glass with a crowbar. A quick pat-down (for officer safety) yields a concealed firearm with no license; officer arrests X.
- Why valid: Specific behavior justified a frisk; discovery of a crime (illegal firearm) created probable cause for arrest.
Checkpoint escalation
- Example: Routine checkpoint stop. Driver rolls down the window; officers see and smell open bags of dried marijuana on the back seat. Arrest follows.
- Why valid: Plain view/smell supplies probable cause, permitting arrest.
Buy-bust
- Example: Poseur-buyer hands marked money; seller hands over shabu sachet. Arrest is immediate.
- Why valid: In flagrante delicto—sale consummated in the officers’ presence.

After the Arrest: What Officers Must Do (and What Accused Should Expect)

Inform the arrestee of the cause of arrest and rights under custodial investigation (counsel, silence, etc.).
Deliver without unnecessary delay to the nearest police station.
Inquest for warrantless arrests: The prosecutor promptly determines probable cause for filing.
Article 125, Revised Penal Code (delivery to judicial authorities):
- Up to 12 hours for light offenses;
- Up to 18 hours for less grave;
- Up to 36 hours for grave; subject to reasonable computation and circumstances (e.g., transport, availability of officers).
RA 7438 (Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation): Requires counsel during custodial investigation; any waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Items seized may be inventoried and photographed as applicable (e.g., RA 9165 chain-of-custody for dangerous drugs).

Consequences of an Illegal Arrest

Suppression of evidence: Items seized as a result of an unlawful arrest (and derivative searches) are subject to the exclusionary rule (“fruit of the poisonous tree”).
Confessions/Admissions: Statements taken in violation of custodial rights are inadmissible.
Effect on case: An illegal arrest does not void a valid conviction supported by admissible evidence. However, the accused must timely object to the arrest’s legality—typically via a motion to quash (for lack of lawful arrest/jurisdiction over the person) or a motion to suppress—before arraignment. Participation in arraignment and trial generally waives objections to defects in arrest.

Key Pitfalls and Red Flags (Courts Often Invalidate These)

No overt act seen; arrest based only on a tip or hunch.
Stale “hot pursuit”—significant delay with no continuous chase or fresh corroboration.
“Consent” that isn’t real—submission to authority or fear is not voluntary consent.
Fishing expeditions at checkpoints—intrusive searches without a trigger (plain view/smell, admission, specific suspicious behavior).
Pretextual stops without specific, articulable facts.

Quick Checklists

For Officers (or Private Persons)

In flagrante: Did I actually see or perceive an overt act of a crime happening now?
Hot pursuit: Did the offense just happen, and do I have specific, fresh facts tying this person to it?
Escapee: Is there a reliable basis that this person escaped custody?
Documentation: Note times, distances, observations, and basis for suspicion; preserve marked money, body-cam/CCTV, and witness details.

For Defense Counsel

Timeline: Pin down minutes/hours between offense and arrest; test immediacy.
Source of knowledge: Was it personal to officers, or mere hearsay/anonymous info?
Overt act: What exactly was seen? (Ambiguity favors the accused.)
Custodial rights: Any uncounseled waivers or coerced admissions?
Suppression motions: Raise before arraignment; challenge chain-of-custody where applicable.

Frequently Asked Questions

1) Can officers arrest on an anonymous tip? Not by itself. They must corroborate with personal observations that rise to probable cause (for arrest) or at least reasonable suspicion (for a frisk) that then ripens into probable cause.

2) Does “presence” require the officer to literally see the entire crime? No, but there must be a contemporaneous perception (e.g., hearing a gunshot and immediately seeing the suspect with a weapon and flight).

3) Can a private citizen arrest a suspected shoplifter? Yes, if the shoplifter is caught in flagrante or the theft has just been committed with personal knowledge of facts indicating the suspect did it. The private person must promptly deliver the arrestee to authorities.

4) If the arrest is illegal, is the case automatically dismissed? Not automatically. The remedy is to suppress illegally obtained evidence and to challenge the arrest before arraignment. If independent, admissible evidence remains, prosecution may continue.

One-Page Summary (Pin This)

Rule: Arrests need warrants—unless one of Rule 113 §5 exceptions applies.
Exceptions:
1. In flagrante delicto (overt act in the arrestor’s presence);
2. Hot pursuit (crime just committed + arrestor’s personal knowledge of linking facts);
3. Escapee (from custody).
Common companions: Stop-and-frisk, checkpoints, buy-bust—each with its own standards.
Invalid patterns: Hunches, anonymous tips without corroboration, stale hot pursuit, coercive “consent.”
After arrest: Inform rights; immediate inquest; heed Art. 125 time limits.
Defense: Move to quash/suppress before arraignment; insist on exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.

Final Note

Courts strictly construe warrantless-arrest exceptions against the State. In close cases, specificity, timing, and documentation determine validity. Whether you’re a law enforcer building a case or defense counsel testing the State’s proof, the overt act / personal knowledge / immediacy triad should be your constant guide.