Search and Seizures

G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

FACTS:
 This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur, 11 th Judicial Region, Digos,
Davao del Sur convicting defendant- appellant Ruben Burgos y Tito of The crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion;
 The evidence for the prosecution is summarized in the decision of the lower court as follows:
- Through the testimony of Pat. Pepito Bioco, and Sgt. Romeo Taroy, it appears that by virtue of
an intelligent information obtained by the Constabulary and INP units, stationed at Digos, Davao
del Sur, on May 12, 1982, one Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities at about 9:00 o'clock A.M. at Digos, Davao del Sur Constabulary Headquarters,
stating that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos as member of the NPA,
threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused;
- Acting on this information, the authorities dispatched a team the following day and located
accused plowing his field adjacent to his residence;
- Right in the house of accused, the latter was caned by the team and Pat. Bioco asked accused
about his firearm, as reported by Cesar Masamlok. At first accused denied possession of said
firearm but later, upon question profounded by Sgt. Alejandro Buncalan with the wife of the
accused, the latter (wife) pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the
ground;
- After the recovery of the firearm, accused likewise pointed to the team, subversive documents
which he allegedly kept in a stockpile of cogon at a distance of three (3) meters apart from his
house;
- To prove accused's subversive activities, Cesar Masamlok, a former NPA convert was presented,
who declared that on March 7, 1972, in his former residence at Tiguman Digos, Davao del Sur,
accused Ruben Burgos, accompanied by his companions Landrino Burgos, Oscar Gomez and
Antonio Burgos, went to his house at about 5:00 o'clock P.M. and called him downstairs.
Thereupon, accused told Masamlok, their purpose was to ask rice and one (1) peso from him, as
his contribution to their companions, the NPA of which he is now a member;
- Assistant Provincial Fiscal Panfilo Lovitos was presented to prove that on May 19, 1982, he
administered the subscription of the extra-judicial confession of accused Ruben Burgos;
- Appearing voluntarily in said office, for the subscription of his confession, Fiscal Lovitos, realizing
that accused was not represented by counsel, requested the services of Atty. Anyog, whose
office is adjacent to the Fiscal's Office, to assist accused in the subscription of his extra-judicial
statement.
- Atty. Anyog assisted accused in the reading of his confession from English to Visayan language,
resulting to the deletion of question No. 19 of the document, by an inserted certification of Atty.
Anyog and signature of accused, indicating his having understood, the allegations of his extra-
judicial statement;
- Atty. Anyog assisted accused in the reading of his confession from English to Visayan language,
resulting to the deletion of question No. 19 of the document, by an inserted certification of Atty.
Anyog and signature of accused, indicating his having understood, the allegations of his extra-
judicial statement.
- Fiscal Lovitos, before accused signed his statement, explained to him his constitutional rights to
remain silent, right to counsel and right to answer any question propounded or not
- After the above-testimony the prosecution formally closed its case and offered its exhibits,
which were all admitted in evidence, despite objection interposed by counsel for accused, which
was accordingly overruled.
 The defendant-appellant's version of the case against him is stated in the decision as follows:
- From his farm, the military personnel, whom he said he cannot recognize, brought him to the PC
Barracks at Digos, Davao del Sur, and arrived there at about 3:00 o'clock on the same date. At
 about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, he was investigated by soldiers, whom he cannot Identify
because they were wearing a civilian attire;
- The investigation was conducted in the PC barracks, where he was detained with respect to the
subject firearm, which the investigator, wished him to admit but accused denied its ownership.
Because of his refusal accused was mauled, hitting him on the left and right side of his body
which rendered him unconscious;
- He said, after recovery of his consciousness, he was again confronted with subject firearm for
him to admit and when he repeatedly refused to accept as his own firearm, he was subjected to
further prolong (sic) torture and physical agony;
- All along, he was investigated to obtain his admission, The process of beating, mauling, pain
and/or ordeal was repeatedly done in similar cycle, from May 13 and 14, 1982;
- Finally on May 15, 1982, after undergoing the same torture and physical ordeal he was seriously
warned, if he will still adamantly refuse to accept ownership of the subject firearm, he will be
salvaged, and no longer able to bear any further the pain and agony, accused admitted
ownership of subject firearm;
- In addition to how he described the torture inflicted on him, accused, by way of explanation and
commentary in details, and going one by one, the allegations and/or contents of his alleged
extrajudicial statement, attributed his answers to those questions involuntarily made only
because of fear, threat and intimidation of his person and family, as a result of unbearable
excruciating pain he was subjected by an investigator;
- To support denial of accused of being involved in any subversive activities, and also to support
his denial to the truth of his alleged extra-judicial confession on certain questions along with
answers to those questions, involving Honorata Arellano alias Inday Arellano, Honorata Arellano
appeared and declared categorically, that the above-questions embraced in the numbers
allegedly stated in the extrajudicial confession of accused, involving her to such NPA
personalities, as Jamper, Pol, Anthony, etc., were not true because on the date referred on April
28, 1982, none of the persons mentioned came to her house for treatment, neither did she meet
the accused nor able to talk with him;
- To support accused's denial of the charge against him, Barangay Captain of Tiguman, Digos,
Davao del Sur, Salvador Galaraga was presented, who declared, he was not personally aware of
any subversive activities of accused, being his neighbor and member of his barrio. On the
contrary, he can personally attest to his good character and reputation, as a law-abiding citizen
of his barrio, being a carpenter and farmer thereat;
- Finally, to support accused's denial of the subject firearm, his wife, Urbana Burgos, was
presented and who testified that the subject firearm was left in their house by Cesar Masamlok
and one Pedipol on May 10, 1982. It was night time, when the two left the gun, alleging that it
was not in order, and that they will leave it behind, temporarily for them to claim it later. They
were the ones who buried it. She said, her husband, the accused, was not in their house at that
time and that she did not inform him about said firearm neither did she report the matter to the
authorities, for fear of the life of her husband.

ISSUE:

WON the arrest without valid warrant is lawful. (NO)

RULING:
 Constitutional Law; Search warrant or warrant of arrest under Art. IV, Sec. 3, Constitution; Purpose of the
constitutional provision.—The constitutional provision is a safeguard against wanton and unreasonable
invasion of the privacy and liberty of a citizen as to his person, papers and effects;
 Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrant of arrest; Personal knowledge required of an officer arresting a
person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.—Under Section 6(a) of
Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is 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. (Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859);
 Exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly construed.—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. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing a warrant would be
absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests
without warrant or extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would
infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection;
 Arrests without a warrant; For arrests without a warrant to be lawful, it is required that a crime must in fact
or actually have been committed first.—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. That a crime has actually been committed is an
essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the
commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of
the perpetrator;
 No presumption that there was a waiver or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply
because he failed to object; Requisites of waiver.—Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver, or
that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed to object. 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 (Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689). The fact that the accused failed to object
to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein (Magoncia v. Palacio,
80 Phil. 770);
 Presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.—We apply the rule that: “courts indulge
every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and that we do not
presume actquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.” (Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458);
 Inadmissibility of firearm and alleged subversive documents which were obtained in violation of the
accused’s constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.—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;
 Right of self-incrimination; Since the accused was never informed of his constitutional rights at the time of
his arrest, his alleged admissions of ownership of the gun and pointing at the location of the subversive
documents after questioning, were obtained in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
—Assuming this to be true, it should be recalled that the accused was never informed of his constitutional
rights at the time of his arrest. So that when the accused allegedly admitted ownership of the gun and
pointed to the location of the subversive documents after questioning, the admissions were obtained in
violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec. 20 of Art. IV of the Bill of Rights;
 Extrajudicial confessions of accused obtained thru violence and third degree measures, inadmissible in
evidence.—The trial court validly rejected the extra-judicial confession of the accused as inadmissible in
evidence. The court stated that the appellant’s having been exhaustively subjected to physical terror,
violence, and third degree measures may not have been supported by reliable evidence but the failure to
present the investigator who conducted the investigation gives rise to the “provocative presumption” that
indeed torture and physical violence may have been committed as stated;
 Right to be assisted by counsel during custodial interrogation; Absence of counsel at the time of custodial
investigation when the extrajudicial statement was taken, renders inadmissible the extrajudicial confession.
—The accused-appellant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the
custodial interrogation. The lower court correctly pointed out that the securing of counsel, Atty. Anyog, to
help the accused when he subscribed under oath to his statement at the Fiscal’s Office was too late. It could
have no palliative effect. It cannot cure the absence of counsel at the time of the custodial investigation
when the extra-judicial statement was being taken;
 Crime not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Credibility of witnesses; Finding of trial court on credibility of
witnesses, not binding on the Supreme Court.—We find the testimony of Masamlok inadequate to convict
Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the trial court found Masamlok’s testimony credible and
convincing. However, we are not necessarily bound by the credibility which the trial court attaches to a
particular witness;
 Testimony of a person considered as interested witness, not credible in case at bar.—In the instant case,
Masamlok’s testimony was totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok surrendered to the military,
certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities. Otherwise, he would also be
charged with subversion. The trade-off appears to be his membership in the Civil Home Defense Force. (TSN,
p. 83, January 4, 1983). Masamlok may be considered as an interested witness. It can not be said that his
testimony is free from the opportunity and temptation to be exaggerated and even fabricated for it was
intended to secure his freedom.