Higit Pa

Susunod na Blog

Bumuo ng Blog

Mag-sign in

Closet Fantasies
Saturday, December 31, 2011

People vs. Burgos (G.R. No. L-68955 September 4,

1986)
G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant.
Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of
subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of
contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del
Sur. From the information filed by the police authorities upon the information
given by Masamlok, allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the
police authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. Subsequently,
certain NPA-related documents and a firearm, allegedly issued and used by one
Alias Cmdr. Pol of the NPA, are confiscated. Defendant denies being involved in
any subversive activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept
ownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have
been made only under fear, threat and intimidation on his person and his family.
He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant, that the
trial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful,
and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7.
Issue: If defendants arrest, the search of his home, and the subsequent
confiscation of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful.
Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendants house to arrest
him upon the information given by Masamlok, they had neither search nor arrest
warrant with themin wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, sec 2). As
the Court held in Villanueva vs Querubin, the state, however powerful,
doesnt have access to a mans home, his haven of refuge where his
individuality can assert itself in his choice of welcome and in the kind of
objects he wants around him. In the traditional formulation, a mans house,
however humble, is his castle, and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by
the government.
The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC:
a)
b)
c)

When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,

or is about to commit an offense in his presence;
When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it;
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

and the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126, Sec 12:
A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.
However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless

Blog Archive
2012 (18)
2011 (17)
December (5)
People vs. Burgos
(G.R. No. L68955
September 4,
1...
Stonehill vs.
Diokno
People vs Marti
People vs Cayat
Ormoc Sugar
Company Inc.
vs Treasurer of
Ormoc Cit...
November (4)
July (8)

The delusional writer of

this blawg
Maria Lucero
Case digests and
a whole lot more,
occasionally
written in Filipino
to amuse herself and at the
same time ensure maximum
comprehension. An old trick of
humanities graduates. The
blogger has a degree in BA
Comparative Literature, major
in European Literatures, from a
prominent state university. She
has had experience as a copy
writer and an English teacher,
and is currently a law student
in a respected college. She is
also trying her hand at satire
and parody in order to lighten
up her life.

arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At the time of defendants

arrest, he wasnt in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document,
and was not committing any subversive acthe was plowing his field. It is not
enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. An essential
precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or actually have been
committed first; it isnt enough to suspect a crime may have been
committed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with which
the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed
to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they
had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime.
There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on
the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts
of the accused were unknown.
In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive
documents, assuming they were really illegal, the defendant was never informed
of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest; thus the admissions obtained
are in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec 20
Art IV (now Sec 12, Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence.
Furthermore, the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to be
assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation. His extra-judicial
confession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents are all
inadmissible as evidence. In light of the aforementioned, defendant is acquitted
on grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with which he has been charged.
Subject firearm and alleged subversive documents have been disposed of in
accordance with law.
The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help in
overcoming a rebellion. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile, while the government
should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels,
and the lawless with the means at its command, it should always be
remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the
framework of our Constitution and our laws.
Posted by Maria Lucero at 3:23 AM
Recommend this on Google

Labels: Arrests Searches and Seizures, Case Digest, Consti 2

No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your comment...

Comment as:

Publish

Google Account

Preview

View my complete profile

Newer Post

Home

Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Awesome Inc. template. Template images by jusant. Powered by Blogger.