CALSADO, LOURDES ANTONETTE V.

151662

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. RUBEN BURGOS y TITO,

defendant-appellant
G.R. no. L-68955, September 4, 1986
Gutierrez Jr., J.

FACTS:
Ruben Burgos was sentenced to be imprisoned for twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal
maximum, as minimum penalty, to reclusion perpetua, as maximum penalty for violating
Presidential Decree No. 9, in relation to General Order No. 6, dated September 22, 1972, and
General Order No. 7, dated September 23, 1972. He was arrested after the authorities searched
through his house and found a .38 caliber gun as well as subversive documents after Cesar
Masamlok reported the defendant’s involvement with the New People’s Army and their motives
and alleged that he was threatened with a gun to join the group. At first, Burgos tried to deny this
possession but they found the buried gun and also saw a cogon of subversive material in his
house. Burgos then executed an extrajudicial admission of guilt which he later said that he was
tortured and forced to sign against his will. Additionally, Burgos’ wife contends though that
Masamlok actually left the gun in their house, 3 days prior the arrest.With the evidence
presented, the trial court ruled that Ruben Burgos was guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal
possession of a firearm in the furtherance of subversion. Hence, this appeal from the decision of
the RTC.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Burgos was arrested lawfully? NO
2. Whether or not the search of the house without warrant is lawful? NO
3. Whether or not Ruben Burgos is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Possession of
Firearms in the Furtherance of Subversion? NO
RULING:
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.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. The police officers can only make a warrantless arrest if: a. if the person to be arrested
committed, is committing, or about to commit a crime in his presence,b. if he has
reasonable ground to believe that the person committed the crime, or c. if the person is a
prisoner escaping a penal establishment. The authorities who arrested Burgos had no
personal knowledge of the commission of the crime and merely acted on the information
they received from Masamlok. They did not see Burgos with the firearm or the
 subversive documents when he was arrested. There is no reasonable ground to believe
that Burgos committed the crime so when they made the warrantless arrest, it was not
valid.
2. The search done was a violation of Burgos’ constitutional rights against unreasonable
search and seizure because he did not give consent or waiver for it. Failure to object to
the search does not give the authorities consent or waiver to search through his house.
What the police did was a wanton and unreasonable invasion of privacy. Because of this,
any evidence procured in the dwelling of the defendant is inadmissible in court. Also, the
authorities failed to inform Burgos of his rights when he was arrested, his admission to
ownership of the gun as well as the subversive documents violated his right against self-
incrimination.
3. After most of the incriminating evidence had been rendered inadmissible in court,
Masamlok’s testimony was the only proof that could be presented. As his fate depended
on his cooperation with the authorities, his testimony would not hold in court so Burgos
is acquitted for lack of sufficient proof of the commission of the crime.