CITIZEN’S ARREST

BASIS:
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court.

Section 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
• When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from 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.
General Rules:

1. Only persons authorized by law to

make arrests can effect arrest of a
person alleged to have committed
an offense, e.g. policeman

2. The arrest should be by virtue of a

valid warrant of arrest
Exception, i.e. when even a PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL can effect an arrest EVEN
WITHOUT A WARRANT

- CITIZEN’S ARREST
When CITIZEN’S ARREST allowed:
1. When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has
committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;

a. In flagrante delicto or “caught

in the act” arrests;

b. Valid grounds to arrest and

detain a person:
 1. Commission of a crime;
2. Violent insanity;
3. Ailment requiring
compulsory confinement in
a hospital (Article 124, RPC)
c. Requisites:
1. Commission of an overt act
constitutive of a criminal
offense.

Examples:
a. Removing a house’s window
grills in ILLEGAL TRESPASS
TO DWELLING;
b. Punching a person in PHYSICAL
INJURIES;
c. Aiming a gun at another in
DISCHARGE OF FIREARM;
d. Slapping a person in the face in
SLANDER BY DEED
Problem:
While conducting regular roving
around the vicinity of his barangay as
appointed barangay tanod, A happened
to chance upon an unknown individual
walking round and about in a dark alley
at 1 o’clock in the morning.

Can A arrest the unknown

individual under in flagrante delicto?
Answer:
NO.
While the individual was performing
an overt act, i.e. walking round and about
in a dark alley, when A chanced upon him,
the said act is not constitutive of any
offense.
2. The overt act constituting an offense
is committed IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE PERSON MAKING THE ARREST
2. 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.

a. Requisites:
1. Immediacy between the time of
commission of the offense and
the time of arrest.
QUERY:
When is an offense deemed to
have JUST BEEN COMMITTED?

1. An interval of ONE DAY between

the time of commission and the
time of arrest is NOT JUSTIFIED
under the second exception.
(People v. Del Rosario)
2. An interval of THREE HOURS can
still be justified under the second
exception (People v. Gerente)
2. Person making the arrest has
probable cause to believe, based
on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances, that the
person to be arrested has
committed it.

a. PROBABLE CAUSE
b. Personal knowledge of FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE,
not personal knowledge of the
commission itself.

Example:
In a stabbing incident, seeing the
wounded sprawled on the ground and
a person fleeing while holding a knife
with bloodied clothes are enough
circumstances to arrest the fleeing
person.
PROBLEM:

Responding to distress calls

coming from concerned neighbors, A,
barangay tanod of Brgy. XYZ, went to
the house of Mr. X. Upon arrival, A
saw Mr. X sprawled on the ground
with blood oozing from his wounds at
his back. Asked by A on what
happened, B, Mr. X’s neighbor,
answered that it was C who stabbed
Mr. X
Question:
Can A, as barangay tanod and on
the basis of the information given by
B, pursue and cause the arrest of C?
Answer:
NO.
Information given by an alleged
witness to the commission of the
offense is not “personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances” as would
justify a valid warrantless arrest.
(People v. Mendez, et al., G.R. No.
147671, November 21, 2002)
3. 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
temporarily confined while his case
is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one
confinement to another.
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438
1. Enumerates the rights of persons arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation
and the duties of arresting and detaining
officers;
2. RIGHTS of arrested/ detained persons:
a. To be assisted by counsel at all times;
b. To be informed, in a language known to
and understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice;
c. To be allowed to confer with his counsel
at all times;
4.To be allowed visits by or
conferences with any member of his
immediate family (spouse, fiancé or
fiancée, parent or child, brother or
sister, grandparent or grandchild,
uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and
guardian or ward), medical doctor or
priest or religious minister.
DUTIES of the arresting/detaining officer:

1. To inform accused of his right to

remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice (FINE of P6,000.00 or
IMPRISONMENT of from 8 to 10 years
or BOTH);

2. To provide accused of competent and

independent counsel if he cannot
afford the services of his own counsel
(same penalties as above);
3. Not to obstruct, prevent or prohibit
any lawyer or any member of the
immediate family of the accused
or any medical doctor or priest
from visiting or conferring
privately with him, or from
examining and treating him, or
from ministering to his spiritual
needs, at any hour of the day, or
in urgent cases, of the night
(IMPRISONMENT of 4 to 6
YEARS and FINE of P4,000.00)
QUERY:

After making the warrantless

arrest, is it the duty of the
barangay tanod to inform the
person arrested of his rights
under RA 7438?
Answer:

It is submitted that IT IS.

While it stated it with a bit of

doubt, the SC in People v. Lauga
(G.R. No. 186228, March 15,
2010) opined that barangay
tanods may be deemed law
enforcement officers for
purposes of applying Article III,
Section 12 (1) and (3) of the
Constitution
Article III, Section 12(1)

Any person under investigation

for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
Article III, Section 12(3)

Any confession or admission

obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against
him.
Important duty of an arresting,
detaining or investigating officer
under RA 7438:

Inform the person arrested,

in a language known to and
understood by him, of his rights
to remain silent and to have
competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own
choice
Importance of discharging the duty
under RA 7438:

1. To render admissible in evidence

any confession subsequently
made by the person arrested;

2. To forestall any criminal liability

under the law
NOTE:
Violation carries penalty of FINE
of P6,000 or imprisonment of NOT
LESS THAN 8 YEARS BUT NOT
MORE THAN 10 YEARS or BOTH
THANK YOU!