10.

PEOPLE vs BURGOS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RUBEN BURGOS y TITO
September 4, 1986
Gutierrez, J.
Appeal from a decision of the RTC Davao del Sur

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

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 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.