Our country's current state only proves that anyone can fit the profile for a druggie or a criminal. You can be subject for interrogation or execution. You choose. With the recent brouhaha over CHR's meager budget, you will be confronted with a realization that no one can defend you at this point but yourself. As reality looks you straight in the eye, knowledge is the only thing that can save you from the inevitable. What does Article 3, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution otherwise known as the Bill of Rights have to say about a person under investigation? 

"the person 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."

Now, what if you can't afford a lawyer? The state will provide you with one. Have you ever wondered why you have the right to remain silent? It's because any statement you give can be used against you in court. You also have the right to have access to lawyer at all times. These rights can only be waived in "writing and in the presence of counsel."

Your rights as an arrested person:

• Know the reason you were arrested. It should also be via an arrest warrant.
• Obtain the arresting officer's identity and authority
• Be "entitled to a trial within a reasonable time"
• Should you undergo physical examination, ensure that it is done by an independent and competent doctor of your choice

If authorities have invited you for questioning, tell them that you will first consult a lawyer, who will be the one to arrange a time, date and place for questioning. They cannot insist on taking you as this will be equivalent to an arrest. 

Note that his type of investigation is not similar to custodial investigation where you are taken into police custody for interrogation. More often than not, "custodial investigation follows warrantless arrest." 

Warrantless Arrest

Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, 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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating 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 temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

A warrant of arrest has to meet the requisites according to the law to be considered valid. It should also be issued by a competent authority, who will also direct the arrest of an individual. The person arrested will be bound to answer for the offense committed. This rule can be found under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The arresting officer must execute a warrant of arrest within 10 days from receipt. It should also be noted that the officer is required to make a report to the judge who issued a warrant and state the reason why the accused has not been arrested within 10 days after the expiration. 

When it comes to the validity of the warrant of arrest, it will be considered valid unless recalled or served. 

Section 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within 30 days from the filing of the complaint or information.

(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. When required pursuant to the second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by the prosecutor. The procedure for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section. (As amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.)

Lawful Warrantless Arrest

Even without a warrant of arrest, a peace officer can still arrest the accused if the following conditions are met:

(a) When a person is in hot pursuit;

(b) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(c) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(d) 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.

It is no secret that policemen have been involved in a series of crimes and while there are cops who continue to exude exemplary behaviour, bad still outnumbers the good. Due to the growing number of policemen involved in crimes, their tainted reputation no longer comes as a surprise. Some cops will take these in their stride, but an ordinary citizen will consider these issues a cause for alarm. Another reason for disappointment is the death of Adora Lazatin, found floating in the Pasig River on April 8, 2016, Friday. The perpetrators were nabbed for the victim’s kidnap-slay, and three of them are policemen.

PO1 Mark Jay de los Santos, Inspector Eljie Jacobe and PO1 Edmon Gonzales were arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) over the weekend.  According to NBI, the perpetrators have withdrawn at least P200,000 from the victim’s savings account. Before Lazatin’s disappearance, Ryan, her son informed him that she was going to meet a prospective buyer and the prospect turned out to be PO1 Mark Jay de los Santos. Lazatin and De los Santos agreed to meet at a mall. Ryan reported his mother missing when she failed to answer text messages.  Aside from kidnapping with homicide, the five suspects are also facing charges for violating the access devices regulation law. 

“Sec. 10. Penalties. — Any person committing any of the acts constituting access device fraud enumerated in the immediately preceding Sec. shall be punished with:

(a) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, whichever is greater and imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and not more than ten (10) years, in the case of an offense under Sec. 9 (b)-(e), and (g)-(p) which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Sec. 9;

(b) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, and imprisonment for not less than ten (10) years and for not more than twelve (12) years, in the case of an offense under Sec. 9 (a), and (f) of the foregoing Sec., which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under Sec. 9; and

(c) a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or twice the value obtained by the offense, or imprisonment for not less than twelve (12) years and not more than twenty (20) years, or both, in the case of any offense under Sec. 9, which occurs after a conviction for another offense under said subSec., or an attempt to commit the same. “