The use of Latin words or terms is still prevalent in the legal profession which is also true in the medical practice. It was a joke during our college of law days that one way for a law student to announce he is taking up law is by using multiple Latin words or terms during discussions. Indeed, it can be very intimidating for someone to be using Latin terms especially if the listener or audience does not know the meaning of the terms. Others might think its use is obsolete but some of these Latin terms are still is use by legal luminaries since they do not have an English equivalent or they encapsulate concepts that need longer explanation, therefore using the Latin term is more convenient. Of course in our country, warrantless arrest is illegal and it is even enshrined in our Constitution but of course there are exceptions. Arrests can be done even without a warrant under certain circumstances and one of which is if the accused was caused “in flagrante delicto”. In Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal ProcedureSection “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;” Meaning, a person may be arrested without a court warrant if the arresting officer or person witnessed the act of committing the crime by the perpetrator. The accused is said to have been in flagrante delicto in this instance.
The Supreme Court explains this concept in the case of People vs. Namuag (G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019). The Court said: “The first instance in Sec. 5 of Rule 113, on which the subject arrest was premised, is known as an in flagrante delicto arrest where the accused was caught in the act or attempting to commit, already committing or having committed an offense. For a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be effected, two elements must concur: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in flagrante delicto arrest constitutionally infirm.”
“The concept of in flagrante delicto arrests should not be confused with warrantless arrests based on probable cause as contemplated in the second instance of Sec. 5 of Rule 113. In the latter type of warrantless arrest, an accused may be arrested when there is probable cause which is discernible by a peace officer or private person that an offense “has just been committed.” Here, the offense had already been consummated but not in the presence of the peace officer or private person who, nevertheless, should have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested had committed it. More importantly, there is durational immediacy between the offense that had just been committed and the peace officer or private person’s perception or observation of the accused’s presence at the incident or immediate vicinity. Such is why probable cause is required to justify a warrantless arrest in cases where the peace officer or private person did not catch or witness the accused in the act of committing an offense.”
In simple words, if the officer or private individual personally witnessed the commission of the crime, the perpetrator can be arrested without a warrant and he is said to have been caught “in flagrante delicto”. This is also popularly known as “caught in the act” or “caught red handed”.
