Hofilena

1) People vs. Sequino

2) People v. Burgos (GR L-68955)

Facts:

-This is an appeal from decision of RTC Davao Del Sur in Convicting Ruben Burgos of Illegal
Possession of Firearms.
- The information charged the defendant w/ the crime of illegal possession of firearm:
- In afternoon of May 13, 1982, at Digos, Davao Del Sur, the defendant Burgos w/ intent to
possess and w/o license to carry, did then and there willfully possess a homemade revolver
caliber .38 (Smith and Wesson) which was issued to and used by defendant at Digos, his
area of operations by one Alias Commander Pol for NPA of which the defendant had
knowledge and which firearm was used by defendant in furtherance of subversive attacks
such as recruitment of NPA members.
- The evidence for prosecution is summarized:
- One Cesar Masamlok voluntarily surrendered to the authorities at 9AM stating that he was
recruited by defendant Burgos as member of NPA.
- After said information, a joint team of 15 members headed by Capt. Bargio on the ff day
went to arrest defendant Burgos,
- In the house of defendant, he was caned by the team and asked about his firearm to which
Burgos denied but later Burgos’ wife pointed that the gun was hidden below his house.
- After recovery of gun, Burgos pointed to the team subversive documents which he kept in a
distance 3 meters apart from his house. The notebook, pamphlet entitled Ang Bayan,
Pahayagan ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas and another pamphlet.
- On the other hand, the defendant Burgos claim is as ff:
- He was brought to PC Barracks and was investigated by soldiers whom he cannot identify as
they were wearing civilian; that the investigator wished him to admit said gun was his and was
subjected to torture and physical agony and was warned that he will be salvaged is he did not
admit.
- He admitted and after admitting he was made to sign his affidavit.
-Accused Burgos claims the ff errors that he was arrested w/o valid warrant.

- The records of the case shows that the police who went to house of accused had no warrant of
arrest nor any search warrant with them.
- Art Iv, Sec 3 of the Constitution says that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
house against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- The court justified the arrest w/o any warrant citing Rule 113, Sec 6 of Rules of Court. More so,
the court claimed that the fact that the authorities received an urgent report of Burgos’
involvement in subversive activities presupposes an instance where no warrant is needed.

Issue: WON the arrest was valid

Held: NO. Trial court’s decision is erroneous.

Under Sec 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person must have the personal
knowledge and that the offense must be committed in his presence.
-There was no personal knowledge in this case.
- The accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok’s verbal report.
Hofilena

3) Alih vs. Castro

Facts:
-On Nov 25, 1984, more than 200 PH marines raided the compound of petitioners in search of
loose firearms, ammunitions and explosives.
- The operation was known as “Zona”.
- The reaction of the people inside the compound was to resist the invasion w/ a burst of gunfire
but no one was hurt. Soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoot-out ensued.
- The compound surrendered the ff day and 16 male occupants surrendered and were subjected
to finger-print test, paraffin test and photographed over their objection.
- The military also confiscated 9 m16’s, nine rifle grenades and several founds of ammo.
- Petitioners filed mandamus and restrainingg order the purpose was to recover seized articles
and to prevent from being used as evidence against them and to challenge finger, printing,
paraffin and photographs as violative of their right against self-incrimination.
- More so, the petitioners Alih demand the return of the arms and ammo on the ground that they
were taken w/o a search warrant.
- Respondents, while admitting lack of search warrant, claimed that the orders came from a
superior and that the operation was a necessary measure because of the assassination of
Mayor Climaco.

Issue: WON the search of petitioners compound was illegal

Held: YES

-The state of lawlessness in Zamboanga did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures.
-The record does not show that the petitioners were wanted criminals and they were merely
suspects and had not even been investigated for it.
-The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of the raid. They knew where the petitioners
were and had every opportunity to get a search warrant before making the raid.
-Since the search of the petitioners compound was violative of the constitution, all items seized are
inadmissible in evidence as these articles are “fruits of the poisonous tree”.
Hofilena

4) People v. Aminudin

Facts:
-Accused claimed that his business was selling watches but he was arrested and found guilty of
illegally transporting marijuana.
-Idel Aminudin was arrested on June 25, 1984, after disembarking from MV Wilcon 9 at about
8:30pm in Iloilo City.
-The PC Officers were in fact waiting for him and simply accosted him, inspected his bag and
found marijuana leaves and took him to their HQ for investigation.
-The leaves were taken to lab and was confirmed. After which, an information for violation
Danerous Drugs Act was filed against him.
-According to the prosecution, the police had received a tip that the accused was on board a
vessel bound for Iloilo and was carrying marijuana. Thus, police acted on the tip.
- In his defense, Aminudin denied the marjiuana, that he was arbitrarily arrested, that his bag was
consficated w/o search warrant, that at the HQ he was forced to admit that he had the
marijuana, that he did not even know what a marijuana leaf looked like.
- The trial court is not convinced noting that he claimed to sell watches but only had 2 watches at
that time.
- The Solgen claimed that the arrest ws valid because it came under Rule 113, sec 6 on
warrantless arrest.

Issue: WON the arrest and search was valid.

Held: NO

-It is not disputed that the police had no warrant when they arrested Aminudin and seized the bag
that he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they had earlier.
-The mandate of the Bill of Right is clear which provides the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses,…
- In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest nor a search warrant issued by a judge.
- The accused was not caught in flagrante delicto nor was a crime about to be committed or had
just been committed by the accused.
- On the point of urgency, the present case presented no such urgency. It is clear that they had at
least 2 days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminudin.
- In many cases of warrantless arrest for violators of Drugs Act, it has always been shown that
they were caught red-handed.
- However in the case at bar, Aminudin was not at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime
nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so.
Hofilena

5) Umil vs. Ramos

Facts:
-Before the court are separate motions filed by petitioners seeking reconsideration which
dismissed their petitions.
-Petitioners maintain:
- that the assailed decision in upholding the validity of the arrests w/o warrant disregarded
the constitutional rights of the persons arrested
- that the decision erred in considering the admissions made by the persons arrested as to
their members w/ NPA and ownership of unlicensed firearms, ammos and subversive documents.
-Court finds no merit in the MR’s.

Issue:

-In the petitioners at bar, to ascertain WON the detention of the petitioners were illegal or not, the
Court looked into WON the arrests w/o warrant were valid. For if valid, it would follow that the
detention is also valid.

Held: YES. MR’s denied.

-The law allows arrests w/o warrant under Sec 5, Rule 113 .
-The Court rules that the arrest of Dural w/o warrant is justified w/in the contemplation of Sec 5,
Rule 113. Dural was said to be committing an offense when he was arrested because he was a
member of the NPA. In Garcia v. Enrile, the crimes of rebeliion, subversion are in the anture of
continuing crimes.
-Given the ideological content of NPA, Dural did not cease to be less subversive when he was
confined at the St. Agnes Hospital.
-Dural was identified as one of the several persons who teh day before his arrest, had shot 2
CAPCOM police in their mobile car. If given another opportunity, he would have shot again another
police.
-The arrest of Dural falls under Sec 5 Rule 113 which requires that 1) person to be arrested has
just committed an offense and 2) arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts that the person
to be arrested is one who committed the offense.
-It has been ruled that “personal knowledge” on warrantless arrests must be based on probable
cause and must be coupled w/ good faith.
-These requisites were present since the military agents were dispatched to St. Agnes Hospital to
very a confidential information about a NPA member (Sparrow Man) who had been admitted to
said hospital, that said person was admitted w/ 5 other NPA members, who murdered 2 CAPCOM
police men a day earlier.
-Said confidential information, is deemed reasonable cause which was based on actual facts
sufficient to engender a blief that an NPA member was truly is said hospital.
-More so, the arresting officers did the arrest in goood faith, considering that the police are
presumed to regularly perform their official duties.

-As to other accused, Roque and Buenaobra, they were arrested validly since they were arrested
in flagrante delicto.
Hofilena

6) People v Delos Santos

7) People v. Mahinay
8) Aquino vs. Paiste

Facts:
- At 9am of March 14, 1991, petitioners went to the house of respondent Paiste at Tondo.
- Petitioner trie to convince respondent ot buy a gold bar owned by a certain Arnold; the
respondent was convinced and agreed to go w/ them to go to a pawnshop to have it tested.
- However, respondent said she had no money.
- Petitioners went back to her house and convinced her to go to Angeles Pamapanga and see the
gold bar and met Arnold who said that the gold bar is worth P60K.
- Again, respondent said she had no money but petitioners pushed her. They went home.
- Subsequently, the petitioners told that the price is now P10K but Arnold wanted P50K.
- Later on the two went back to Angeles and bought the gold bar for P50K.
- Respondent tested the bar and informed it was fake and went to petitioners house.
- Respondent brought petitioner to NBI NCR in presence of Atty Tolentino where petitioner
promsied to locate Garganta and the document they both signed would be disregarded if they
locate Garganta.
- Petitioner brought Garganta to house of respondent.
- In presence of brgy chairperson and police, respondent pointed to Garganta as the person who
sold the fake gold bar and she brought to police HQ.
- Trial ensued w/ prosecution presenting testimonial evidence.
- RTC convicted petitioner.
- Petitioner appealed in CA which affirmed RTC’s decision