Topic Warrantless Arrests | Exceptions construed strictly
Burgos claimed that from his farm, the military personnel brought him to
Case No. G.R. No. L-68955 | September 4, 1986
Case People vs. Burgos
Name
Full Case PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
Name vs.
RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant
Ponente Gutierrez, Jr., J:
Doctrine The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable
seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a
most basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule which
allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is
strictly construed.
Nature An appeal from the decision of the RTC of Davao del Sur
convicting Ruben Burgos of the crime of illegal possession
of firearms in furtherance of subversion.
RELEVANT FACTS
Prosecution:
The prosecution averred that Cesar Masamlok surrendered to the
authorities. Masamlok testified that he was forcibly recruited by Burgos
as member of the NPA by threatening him with the use of a firearm
against his life if he refused.
A joint team of PC-INP units was dispatched. The team was able to
locate Burgos who was plowing his field. Right in his house, Burgos was
called by the team and was asked about his firearm. Burgos initially
denied possession of the firearm but his wife pointed to a place below
their house where a gun was buried. Moreover, the team recovered
subversive documents near his house. Burgos eventually admitted that
these were issued to him by the alleged team leader of the sparrow unit
of the NPA
Defense:
the PC barracks, and in that evening, he was investigated by soldiers
wearing civilian attire. He claimed to have been detained in the barracks
with respect to the subject firearm which the investigator wished him to
admit. He refused to do so and, thus, was mauled and subjected to other
tortures to the extent that he passed out. Upon recovery of his
consciousness, he was again confronted with the firearm; upon his
continued refusal to admit his ownership of the same, he was tortured
for days. Eventually he was told that further denial would lead to his
being salvaged, and since he can no longer bear such pain and agony,
Burgos admitted to owning the subject firearm. To support Burgos’
denial of the firearm, his wife testified that the same was left in their
house by Masamlok, who told them that it was not in order and will leave
the same behind temporarily; further, she said that Burgos was not at
home at the time that Masamlok buried the gun and that she did not tell
her husband about it nor did she report it to the authority out of fear for
her husband’s life.
The records of the case show that the police had neither warrant of
arrest nor search warrant when they came to Burgos’ house.
Burgos appealed to the Court on the ground that he was unlawfully
searched and arrested.
ISSUES
1. Was the arrest, search and seizure lawful and/or conducted in a
lawful/valid manner?
RATIO DECIDENDI
1. Was the arrest, search and seizure lawful and/or conducted in a
lawful/valid manner?
NO. The arresting officers had no personal knowledge of the offense;
whatever knowledge they had came entirely from the information
furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given
away by the appellant’s wife. At the time of the appellant's arrest, he was Cost de oficio.
not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. Neither
was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. He SO ORDERED
was, in fact, plowing his field at the time of the arrest. NO SEPARATE OPINIONS

For a warrantless arrest to be lawful, the officer arresting a person

who has just committed/is committing/ about to commit an
offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense
must also be committed in his presence or within his view.

In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough

that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested
has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been
committed first.

To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists;

secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said
person had an actual intention to relinquish the right

Courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of

fundamental constitutional rights and that we do not presume
acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.
Considering that the questioned firearm and the alleged subversive
documents were obtained in violation of the accused's
constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, it
follows that they are inadmissible as evidence.

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellant is hereby
ACQUITTED, on grounds of reasonable doubt, of the crime with which
he has been charged.

The subject firearm involved in this case (homemade revolver, caliber

.38, Smith and Wesson, with Serial No. 8.69221) and the alleged
subversive documents are ordered disposed of in accordance with law.