Umil vs. Ramos (G.R. No.

81567)1 Before the Court are separate motions filed by the petitioners in the above-entitled petitions, seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision promulgated on 9 July 1990 the decision, for brevity! "hich dismissed the petitions, "ith the follo"ing dispositive part# $%&'&()'&, the petitions are hereby *+,-+,,&*, e.cept that in G.R. No. 85727 &spiritu vs/ 0im!, the bail bond for petitioner's provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from 120,000/00 to 110,000/00/ 3o costs/ 4he Court avails of this opportunity to clarify its ruling a begins "ith the statement that the decision did not rule 5 as many misunderstood it to do 5 that mere suspicion that one is Communist 1arty or 3e" 1eople's 6rmy member is a valid ground for his arrest "ithout "arrant/ -oreover, the decision merely applied long existing laws to the factual situations obtaining in the several petitions/ 6mong these la"s are th outla"ing the Communist 1arty of the 1hilippines C11! similar organi7ations and penali7ing membership therein be dealt "ith shortly!/ +t is elementary, in this connection, if these la"s no longer reflect the thinking or sentiment of the people, it is Congress as the elected representative of the people 5 not the Court 5 that should repeal, change or modify them/ +n their separate motions for reconsideration, petitioners, in sum, maintain# 1/ 4hat the assailed decision, in upholding the validity of the 8uestioned arrests made "ithout "arrant, and in relying on the provisions of the 'ules of Court, particularly ,ection 9 of 'ule 11: 6rrest!, disregards the fact that such arrests violated the constitutional rights of the persons arrested; </ 4hat the doctrine laid do"n in Garcia vs/ Enrile 1 and Ilagan vs/ Enrile < should be abandoned; :/ 4hat the decision erred in considering the admissions made by the persons arrested as to their membership in the Communist 1arty of the 1hilippines=3e" 1eople's 6rmy, and their o"nership of the unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and subversive documents found in their possession at the time of arrest, inasmuch as those confessions do not comply "ith the re8uirements on admissibility of e.tra>udicial admissions; ?/ 4hat the assailed decision is based on a misappreciation of facts; 9/ 4hat @/'/ 3o/ A192B the Cmil case! should not be deemed moot and academic/ $e find no merit in the motions for reconsideration/ +t can not be overlooked that these are petitions for the issuance of the "rit of habeas corpus, filed by petitioners under the 'ules of Court/ : 4he "rit of habeas corpus e.ists as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint/ ? 4herefore, the function of the special proceedings of habeas corpus is to in8uire into the legality of one's detention, 9 so that if detention is illegal, the detainee may be ordered forth"it released/ +n the petitions at bar, to ascertain "hether the detention petitioners "as illegal or not, the Court before rendering decision dated 9 July 1990, looked into "hether their 8uestioned arrests "ithout "arrant "ere made in accordance "ith la"/ (or, if the arrests "ere made in accordance "ith la", "ould follo" that the detention resulting from such arrests also in accordance "ith la"/ 4here can be no dispute that, as a general rule, no peace officer or person has the po"er or authority to arrest anyo "ithout a "arrant of arrest, except in those cases express authorize b! law / 2 4he la" e.pressly allo"ing arrests "itho "arrant is found in ,ection 9, 'ule 11: of the 'ules of Court "hich states the grounds upon "hich a vali arrest" without warrant, can be conducted/ +n the present cases, the focus is understandably on ,ection 9, paragraphs a! and b! of the said 'ule 11:, "hich read# ,ec/ 9/ #rrest without warrant; when lawful/ 5 6 peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant , arrest a person# a! $hen, in his presence, the person to he arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; b! $hen an offense has in fact >ust been committed, and he has personal kno"ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrest has committed it; and / / / &mphasis supplied!/

4he Court's decision of 9 July 1990 rules that the arrest Rolan o $ural @/'/ 3o/ A192B! without warrant is >ustified it can be said that, "ithin the contemplation of %ection 5 Rule &&', he *ural! "as committing an offense, "hen arrested because *ural "as arrested for being a member of the 3e" 1eople's 6rmy, an outla"ed organi7ation, "here membership penali7ed, B and for subversion "hich, like rebellion is, under the doctrine of Garcia vs/ Enrile, A a continuing offense, thus# 4he crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance sic! on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection there"ith under 1residential 1roclamation 3o/ <0?9, are all in the nature of continuing offenses "hich set them apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nation"ide magnitude/ / / / @iven the ideological content of membership in the C11=316 "hich includes armed struggle for the overthro" of organi7ed government, *ural did not cease to be, or became less of a subversive, ()' 1C'1),&, )( 6''&,4, simply because he "as, at the time of arrest, confined in the ,t/ 6gnes %ospital/ *ural "as identified as one of several persons "ho the day before his arrest, "ithout "arrant, at the ,t/ 6gnes %ospital, had shot t"o <! C61C)- policemen in their patrol car/ 4hat *ural had shot the t"o <! policemen in Caloocan City as part of his mission as a Esparro"E 316 member! did not end there and then/ *ural, given another opportunity, "ould have shot or "ould shoot other policemen any"here as agents or representatives of organi7ed government/ +t is in this sense that subversion like rebellion or insurrection! is perceived here as a continuing offense/ Cnlike other socalled EcommonE offenses, i/e/ adultery, murder, arson, etc/, "hich generally end upon their commission, subversion and rebellion are anchored on an i eological base "hich compels the repetition of the same acts of la"lessness and violence until the overriding ob>ective of overthro"ing organi7ed government is attained/ 3or can it be said that *ural's arrest "as grounded on mere suspicion by the arresting officers of his membership in the C11=316/ %is arrest "as based on Eprobable cause,E as supported by actual facts that "ill be sho"n hereafter/ Fie"ed from another but related perspective, it may also be said, under the facts of the Cmil case, that the arrest of *ural falls under %ection 5" paragraph (b)" Rule &&' of the 'ules of Court, "hich re8uires t"o <! conditions for a valid arrestt "ithout "arrant# first, that the person to be arrested has >ust committed an offense, and secon , that the arresting peace officer or private person has personal kno"ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one "ho committed the offense/ ,ection 9 b!, 'ule 11:, it "ill be noted, refers to arrests "ithout "arrant, based on Epersonal kno"ledge of factsE ac8uired by the arresting officer or private person/ +t has been ruled that Epersonal kno"ledge of facts,E in arrests "ithout "arrant must be based upon probable cause, "hich means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion 9 4he grounds of suspicion are reasonable "hen, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i/e/, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested/ 10 6 reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, couple with goo faith on the part of the peace officers *a+ing the arrest/ 11 4hese re8uisites "ere complied "ith in the Cmil case and in the other cases at bar/ +n G/R/ No/ 8&5,7 (-*il case), military agents, on 1 (ebruary 19AA, "ere dispatched to the ,t/ 6gnes %ospital, 'oosevelt 6venue, Gue7on City, to verify a confidential information "hich "as received by their office, about a Esparro" manE 316 member! "ho had been admitted to the said hospital "ith a gunshot "ound; that the information further disclosed that the "ounded man in the said hospital "as among the five 9! male Esparro"sE "ho murdered t"o <! Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on :1 January 19AA at about 1<#00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along -acanining ,t/, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City; that based on the same information, the "ounded man's name "as listed by the hospital management as E'onnie Javellon,E t"enty-t"o <<! years old of Block 10, 0ot ?, ,outh City %omes, BiHan, 0aguna/ 1< ,aid confidential information received by the arresting officers, to the effect that an 316 member Esparro" unitE! "as being treated for a gunshot "ound in the named hospital, is deemed reasonable and "ith cause as it "as based on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to engender a belief that an 316 member "as truly in the said hospital/ 4he actual facts supported by circumstances are# first 5 the day before, or on :1 January 19AA, t"o <! C61C)- soldiers "ere actually killed in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City by five 9! Esparro"sE including *ural; secon . a "ounded person listed in the hospital records as E'onnie JavellonE "as actually then being treated in ,t/ 6gnes %ospital for a gunshot "ound; thir . as the records of this case disclosed later, E'onnie JavellonE and his address entered in the hospital records "ere fictitious and the "ounded man "as in reality 'olando *ural/ +n fine, the confidential information received by the arresting officers merited their immediate attention and action and, in fact, it "as found to be true/ &ven the petitioners in their motion for reconsideration, 1: believe that the confidential information of the arresting officers to the effect that *ural "as then being treated in ,t/ 6gnes %ospital

C'+-&, 6@6+3,4 (C3*6-&3460 06$, )( 4%& ,464& 6'B+4'6'D *&4&34+)3!

"as actually received from the attending doctor and hospital management in compliance "ith the directives of the la", 1? and, therefore, came from reliable sources/ 6s to the condition that Eprobable causeE must also be coupled "ith acts done in good faith by the officers "ho make the arrest, the Court notes that the peace officers "no arrested *ural are deemed to have conducted the same in good faith, considering that la" enforcers are presumed to regularly perform their official duties/ 4he records sho" that the arresting officers did not appear to have been ill-motivated in arresting *ural/ 19 +t is therefore clear that the arrest, "ithout "arrant, of *ural "as made in compliance "ith the re8uirements of paragraphs a! and b! of ,ection 9, 'ule 11:/ 1arenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a fe" day after *ural's arrest, "ithout "arrant, an information charging double murder "ith assault against agents of persons in authority "as filed against *ural in the 'egional 4rial Court of Caloocan City Criminal Case 3o/ C-:011<!/ %e "as thus promptly placed under >udicial custody as distinguished fro custody of the arresting officers!/ )n :1 6ugust 19AA, he "a convicted of the crime charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua/ 4he >udgment of conviction is no" on appeal before this Court in @/'/ 3o/ A?9<1/ 6s to #*elia Ro/ue and 0ilfre o 1uenaobra @/'/ 3os/ A?9A1-A<!, $o*ingo #nonuevo and Ra*on 2asiple @/'/ 3os/ A?9A:-A?! and 3ic+! 4ca!a @/'/ 3o/ A:12<!, their arrests, "ithout "arrant, are also >ustified/ 4hey "ere searched pursuant to search "arrants issued by a court of la" and "ere found "it unlicensed firearms, e.plosives and=or ammunition in their persons/ 4hey "ere, therefore, caught in flagrante elicto "hich >ustified their outright arrests "ithout "arrant, under ,ec 9 a!, 'ule 11:, 'ules of Court/ 1arenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a fe" davs after their arrests "ithout "arrant, informations "ere filed in court against said petitioners, thereby placing them "ithin >udicial custody and disposition/ (urthermore, Buenaobra mooted his o"n petition fo habeas corpus by announcing to this Court during the hearing of these petitions that he had chosen to remain in detention in the custody of the authorities/ -ore specifically, the antecedent facts in the Ein flagranteE cases are# 1/ )n <B June 19AA, the military agents received information imparted by a former 316 about the operations of the C11 and 316 in -etro -anila and that a certain house occupied by one 'enato Constantine, located in the Fillalu7 Compound, -olave ,t/, -arikina %eights, -arikina, -etro -anila "as being used as their safehouse; that in vie" of this information, the said house "as placed under military surveillance and on 1< 6ugust 19AA, pursuant to a search warrant ul! issue b! court , a search of the house "as conducted; that "hen 'enato Constantine "as then confronted he could not produce any permit to possess the firearms, ammunitions, radio and other communications e8uipment, and he admitted that he "as a ranking member of the C11/ 12 </ +n the case of 0ilfre o 1uenaobra, he arrived at the house of 'enato Constantino in the evening of 1< 6ugust 19AA, and admitted that he "as an 316 courier and he had "ith him letters to 'enato Constantine and other members of the rebel group/ :/ )n the other hand, the arrest of #*elia Ro/ue "as a conse8uence of the arrest of Buenaobra "ho had in his possession papers leading to the "hereabouts of 'o8ue; 1B that, at the time of her arrest, the military agents found subversive documents and live ammunitions, and she admitted then that the documents belonged to her/1A ?/ 6s regards $o*ingo #nonuevo and Ra*on 2asiple they "ere arrested "ithout "arrant on 1: 6ugust 19AA, "hen they arrived at the said house of 'enato Constantine in the evening of said date; that "hen the agents frisked them, subversive documents, and loaded guns "ere found in the latter's possession but failing to sho" a permit to possess them/ 19 9/ $ith regard to 3ic+! 4ca!a, she "as arrested, "ithout "arrant "hen she arrived on 1< -ay 19AA! at the premises ofthe house of one Benito 4iam7on "ho "as believed to be the head of the C11=316, and whose house was sub5ect of a search warrant ul! issue b! the court / 6t the time of her arrest "ithout "arrant the agents of the 1C-+ntelligence and +nvestigation found ammunitions and subversive documents in the car of )caya/ <0 +t is to be noted in the above cases 'o8ue, Buenaobra, 6nonuevo, Casiple and )caya! that the reason "hich compelled the military agents to make the arrests "ithout "arrant "as the information given to the military authorities that t"o <! safehouses one occupied by 'enato Constantine and the other by Benito 4iam7on! "ere being used by the C11=316 for their operations, "ith information as to their e.act location and the names of 'enato Constantine and Benito 4iam7on as residents or occupants thereof/ 6nd at the time of the actual arrests, the follo"ing circumstances surrounded said arrests of 'o8ue, Buenaobra, 6nonuevo and Casiple!, "hich confir*e the belief of the military agents that the information they had received "as true and the persons to be arrested "ere probably guilty of the commission of certain crimes# first# search "arrant "as duly issued to effect the search of the Constantine safehouse; secon # found in the safehouse "as a person named 'enato Constantine, "ho admitted that he "as a ranking member of the C11, and found in his possession "ere unlicensed firearms and communications e8uipment; thir # at the time of their arrests, in their possession "ere

unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and=or subversive documents, and they admitted o"nership thereof as "ell as their membership in the C11=316/ 6nd then, shortly after their arrests, they "ere positively identified by their former comrades in the organi7ation as C11=316 members/ +n vie" of these circumstances, the corresponding informations "ere filed in court against said arrested persons/ 4he records also sho" that, as in the case of *ural, the arrests "ithout "arrant made by the military agents in the Constantino safehouse and later in the 6melia 'o8ue house, do not appear to have been ill-motivated or irregularly performed/ $ith all these facts and circumstances e.isting before, during and after the arrest of the afore-named persons *ural, Buenaobra, 'o8ue, 6nonuevo, Casiple and )caya!, no prudent an can say that it "ould have been better for the military agents not to have acted at all and made any arrest/ 4hat "ould have been an unpardonable neglect of official duty and a cause for disciplinary action against the peace officers involved/ (or, one of the duties of la" enforcers is to arrest la"breakers in order to place them in the hands of e.ecutive and >udicial authorities upon "hom devolves the duty to investigate the acts constituting the alleged violation of la" and to prosecute and secure the punishment therefor/ <1 6n arrest is therefore in the nature of an administrative measure/ 4he po"er to arrest "ithout "arrant is "ithout limitation as long as the re8uirements of ,ection 9, 'ule 11: are met/ 4his rule is founded on an over"helming public interest in peace and order in our communities/ +n ascertaining "hether the arrest "ithout "arrant is conducted in accordance "ith the conditions set forth in ,ection 9, 'ule 11:, this Court determines not "hether the persons arrested are indeed guilty of committing the crime for "hich they "ere arrested/ << 3ot evidence of guilt, but Eprobable causeE is the reason that can validly compel the peace officers, in the performance of their duties and in the interest of public order, to conduct an arrest "ithout "arrant/ <: 4he courts should not e.pect of la"-enforcers more than "hat the la" re8uires of them/ Cnder the conditions set forth in ,ection 9, 'ule 11:, particularly paragraph b! thereof, even if the arrested persons are later found to be innocent and ac8uitted, the arresting officers are not liable/ <? But if they do not strictly comply "ith the said conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable for the crime of arbitrary detention, <9 for damages under 6rticle :< of the Civil Code <2 and=or for other administrative sanctions/ +n G/R/ No/ 85727, Espiritu, on <: 3ovember 19AA, "as arrested "ithout "arrant, on the basis of the attestation of certain "itnesses# that about 9#00 o'clock in the afternoon of << 3ovember 19AA, at the corner of -agsaysay Boulevard and Felencia ,t/, ,ta/ -esa, -anila, &spiritu spoke at a gathering of drivers and sympathi7ers, "here he said, among other things# Bukas tuloy ang "elga natin / / / hanggang sa *ag+agulona/ <B &mphasis supplied! and that the police authorities "ere present during the press conference held at the 3ational 1ress Club 31C! on << 3ovember 19AA "here &spiritu called for a nation"ide strike of >eepney and bus drivers! on <: 3ovember 19AA/ <A &spiritu "as arrested "ithout "arrant, not for subversion or any Econtinuing offense,E but for uttering the above-8uoted language "hich, in the perception of the arresting officers, "as inciting to se ition/ -any persons may differ as to the validity of such perception and regard the language as falling "ithin free speech guaranteed by the Constitution/ But, then, &spiritu had not lost the right to insist, during the pre-trial or trial on the merits, that he "as >ust e.ercising his right to free speech regardless of the charged atmosphere in "hich it "as uttered/ But, the authority of the peace officers to make the arrest, "ithout "arrant, at the time the "ords "ere uttered, or soon thereafter, is still another thing/ +n the balancing of authority and freedom, "hich obviously becomes difficult at times, the Court has, in this case, tilted the scale in favor of authority but onl! for purposes of the arrest not conviction!/ 0et it be noted that the Court has ordered the bail for &spiritu's release to be reduced from 120,000/00 to 110,000/00/ 0et it also be noted that supervening events have made the Espiritu case moot and academic/ (or &spiritu had before arraignment asked the court a /uo for re-investigation, the peace officers did not appear/ Because of this development, the defense asked the court a /uo at the resumption of the hearings to dismiss the case/ Case against &spiritu Criminal Case 3o/ AA-2A:A9! has been provisionally dismissed and his bail bond cancelled/ +n G/R/ No/ 8,''2 Nazareno!, the records sho" that in the morning of 1? *ecember 19AA, 'omulo Bunye ++ "as killed by a group of men in 6labang, -untinlupa, -etro -anila; that at about 9#00 o'clock in the morning of <A *ecember 19AA, 'amil 'egala, one of the suspects in the said killing, "as arrested and he pointed to 3arciso 3a7areno as one of his companions during the killing of Bunye ++; that at B#<0 of the same morning <A *ecember 19AA!, the police agents arrested 3a7areno, "ithout "arrant, for investigation/ <9 6lthough the killing of Bunye ++ occurred on 1? *ecember 19AA, "hile 3a7areno's arrest "ithout "arrant "as made only on <A *ecember 19AA, or 1? days later, the arrest fans under ,ection 9 b! of 'ule 11:, since it "as only on <A *ecember 19AA that the police authorities came to kno" that 3a7areno "as probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye ++ and the arrest had to be made promptly, even "ithout "arrant, after the police "ere alerted! and despite the lapse of fourteen 1?! days to prevent possible flight/ 6s sho"n in the decision under consideration, this Court, in upholding the arrest "ithout "arrant of 3a7areno noted several facts and events surrounding his arrest and detention, as follo"s#

/ / / on : January 19A9 or si. 2! days after his arrest "ithout "arrant!, an information charging 3arciso 3a7areno, 'amil 'egala and t"o <! others, "ith the killing of 'omulo Bunye ++ "as filed "it the 'egional 4rial Court of -akati, -etro -anila/ 4he case is dock eted therein as Criminal Case 3o/ B:1/ )n B January 19A9, 3arciso 3a7areno filed a motion to post bail but the motion "as denied by the trial court in an order dated 10 January 19A9, even as the motion to post bail, earlier filed by his co-accused, -anuel 0aureaga, "as granted by the same trial court/ )n 1: January 19A9, a petition for habeas corpus "as filed "ith this Court on behalf of 3arciso 3a7areno and on 1: January 19A9, the Court issued the "rit of habeas corpus, retumable to the 1residing Judge of the 'egional 4rial Court of Bifian, 0aguna, Branch <?, ordering said court to hear the case on :0 January 19A9 and thereafter resolve the petition/ 6t the conclusion of the hearing, or on 1 (ebruary 19A9, the 1residing Judge of the 'egional 4rial Court of BiHan, 0aguna issued a resolution denying the petition for habeas corpus, it appearing that the said 3arciso 3a7areno is in the custody of the respondents by reason of an information filed against him "ith the 'egional 4rial Court of -akati, -etro -anila "hich liad taken cogni7ance of said case and had, in fact, denied the motion for bail filed by said 3arciso 3a7areno presumably because of the strength of the evidence against him!/ 4his Court reiterates that shortly after the arrests of Espiritu and Nazareno" the corresponding informations against them "ere filed in court/ 4he arrests of &spiritu and 3a7areno "ere based on probable cause and supported by factual circumstances/ 4hey complied "ith conditions set forth in ,ection 9 b! of 'ule 11:/ 4hey "ere not arbitrary or "himsical arrests/ 1arenthetically, it should be here stated that 3a7areno has since been convicted by the court a /uo for murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua/ %e has appealed the >udgment of conviction to the Court of 6ppeals "here it is pending as of this date C6-@/'/ 3o/ still undocketed!/ 1etitioners contend that the decision of 9 July 1990 ignored the contitution re8uisiteds for admissibility of an e.tra>udicial admission/ +n the case of 1uenaobra @/'/ 3os/ A?9A1-A<!, he admitted :0 that he "as an 316 courier/ )n the other hand, in the case of #*elia Ro/ue, she admitted :1 that the unlicensed firearms, ammunition and subversive documents found in her possession during her arrest, belonged to her/ 4he Court, it is true, took into account the admissions of the arrested persons of their membership in the C11=316, as "ell as their o"nership of the unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and documents in their possession/ But again, these admissions, as revealed by the records, strengthen the Court's perception that truly the grounds upon "hich the arresting officers based their arrests "ithout "arrant, are supported by probable cause, i/e/ that the persons arrested "ere probably guilty of the commission of certain offenses, in compliance "ith ,ection 9, 'ule 11: of the 'ules of Court/ 4o note these admissions, on the other hand, is not to rule that the persons arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon "hich their "arrantless arrests "ere predicated/ 4he task of determining the guilt or innocence of persons arrested "ithout "arrant is not proper in a petition for habeas corpus/ +t pertains to the trial of the case on the merits/ 6s to the argument that the doctrines in Garcia vs/ Enrile, and Ilagan vs/ Enrile should be abandoned, this Court finds no compelling reason at this ti*e to disturb the same, particularly ln the light of prevailing conditions "here national security and liability are still directly challenged perhaps "ith greater vigor from the communist rebels/ $hat is important is that everv arrest "ithout "arrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding/ 4his Court/ "ill promptly look into 5 and all other appropriate courts are en>oined to do the same 5 the legality of the arrest "ithout "arrant so that if the conditions under ,ec/ 9 of 'ule 11:, 'ules of Court, as elucidated in this 'esolution, are not met, then the detainee shall forth"ith be ordered released; but if such conditions are met, then the detainee shall not be made to languish in his detention but must be promptly tried to the end that he may be either ac8uitted or convicted, "ith the least delay, as "arranted by the evidence/ # 6inal 0or 4his 'esolution ends as it began, reiterating that mere suspicion of being a Communist 1arty member or a subversive is absolutel! not a ground for the arrest "ithout "arrant of the suspect/ 4he Court predicated the validity of the 8uestioned arrests "ithout "arrant in these petitions, not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance "ith the conditions set forth in ,ection 9, 'ule 11:, 'ules of Court, a long e.isting la", and "hich, for stress, are probable cause and goo faith of the arresting peace officers, and, further, on the basis of, as the records sho", the actual facts an circu*stances supporting the arrests/ -ore than the allure of popularity or palatability to some groups, what is i*portant is that the 2ourt be right/ 6CC)'*+3@0D, the motions for reconsideration of the decision dated 9 July 1990, are *&3+&*/ 4his denial is (+360/ ,) )'*&'&*/

People vs. Burgos (G.R. No. L-68955)2 GU !"RR"#$ %R.$ J.: 4his is an appeal from the decision of the 'egional 4rial Court of *avao del ,ur, 11 th Judicial 'egion, *igos, *avao del ,ur convicting defendant- appellant 'uben Burgos y 4ito of 4he crime of +llegal 1ossession of (irearms in (urtherance of ,ubversion/ 4he dispositive portion of the decision reads# $%&'&()'&, finding the guilt of accused 'uben Burgos sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt, of the offense charges , pursuant to 1residential *ecree 3o/ 9, in relation to @eneral )rder 3o/ 2, dated ,eptember <<, 19B<, and @eneral )rder 3o/ B, dated ,eptember <:, 19B<, in relation further to 1residential *ecree 3o/ AA9, and considering that the firearm sub>ect of this case "as not used in the circumstances as embraced in paragraph + thereof, applying the provision of indeterminate sentence la", accused 'uben Burgos is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of t"enty <0! years of reclusion temporal ma.imum, as minimum penalty, to reclusion perpetua, as ma.imum penalty, pursuant to sub-paragraph B, of 1residential *ecree 3o/ 9, as aforementioned, "ith accessory penalties, as provided for by la"/ 6s a result of this >udgment, the sub>ect firearm involved in this case %omemade revolver, caliber /:A, ,mith and $esson, "ith ,erial 3o/ A/29<<1! is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government, to be disposed of in accordance "ith la"/ 0ike"ise, the subversive documents, leaflets and=or propaganda sei7ed are ordered disposed of in accordance "ith la"/ 4he information charged the defendant-appellant "ith the crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion in an information "hich reads as follo"s# 4hat in the afternoon of -ay 1:, 19A< and thereabout at 4iguman, *igos, *avao del ,ur, 1hilippines, "ithin the >urisdiction of this Court, the above- named accused "ith intent to possess and "ithout the necessary license, permit or authority issued by the proper government agencies, did then and there "ilfully, unla"fully and feloniously keep, possess, carry and have in his possession, control and custody one 1! homemade revolver, caliber /:A, make ,mith and $esson, "ith ,erial 3o/ A/29<<1, "hich firearm "as issued to and used by the accused at 4iguman, *igos, *avao del ,ur, his area of operations by one 6lias Commander 1ol for the 3e" 1eople's 6rmy 316!, a subversive organi7ation organi7ed for the purpose of overthro"ing the @overnment of the 'epublic of the 1hilippines through la"less and violent means, of "hich the accused had kno"ledge, and "hich firearm "as used by the accused in the performance of his subversive tasks such as the recruitment of 3e" -embers to the 316 and collection of contributions from the members/ C)34'6'D 4) 06$/ 4he evidence for the prosecution is summari7ed in the decision of the lo"er court as follo"s# ... ... ... / / / 4hrough the testimony of 1at/ 1epito Bioco, and ,gt/ 'omeo 4aroy, it appears that by virtue of an intelligent information obtained by the Constabulary and +31 units, stationed at *igos, *avao del ,ur, on -ay 1<, 19A<, one Cesar -asamlok personally and voluntarily surre0ndered to the authorities at about 9#00 o'clock 6/-/ at *igos, *avao del ,ur Constabulary %ead8uarters, stating that he "as forcibly recruited by accused 'uben Burgos as member of the 316, threatening him "ith the use of firearm against his life, if he refused/ 6long "ith his recruitment, accused "as asked to contribute one 1! chopa of rice and one peso 11/00! per month, as his contribution to the 316 4,3, page 9, %earing-)ctober 1?, 19A<!/ +mmediately, upon receipt of said information, a >oint team of 1C-+31 units, composed of fifteen 19! members, headed by Captain -elchesideck Bargio, 1C!, on the follo"ing day, -ay 1:, 19A<, "as dispatched at 4iguman; *avao del ,ur, to arrest accused 'uben Burgos/ 4he team left the head8uarter at 1#:0 1/-/, and arrived at 4iguman, at more or less <#00 o'clock 1- "here through the help of 1edro Burgos, brother of accused, the team "as able to locate accused, "ho "as plo"ing his field/ 4,3, pages 2-B, %earing-)ctober 1?, 19A<!/ 'ight in the house of accused, the latter "as caned by the team and 1at/ Bioco asked accused about his firearm, as reported by Cesar -asamlok/ 6t first accused denied possession of said firearm but later, upon 8uestion profounded by ,gt/ 6le>andro Buncalan "ith the "ife of the accused, the latter pointed to a place belo" their house "here a gun "as buried in the ground/ 4,3, page A, %earing-)ctober 1?, 19A<!/ 2

C'+-&, 6@6+3,4 (C3*6-&3460 06$, )( 4%& ,464& 6'B+4'6'D *&4&34+)3!

1at/ Bioco then verified the place pointed by accused's "ife and dug the grounds, after "hich he recovered the firearm, Caliber /:A revolver, marked as &.hibit E6E for the prosecution/ 6fter the recovery of the firearm, accused like"ise pointed to the team, subversive documents "hich he allegedly kept in a stock pile of 888cogon at a distance of three :! meters apart from his house/ 4hen ,gt/ 4aroy accordingly verified beneath said cogon grass and like"ise recovered documents consisting of notebook colored maroon "ith spiral bound, &.hibit EBE for the prosecution; a pamphlet consisting of eight A! leaves, including the front and back covers entitled 6ng Bayan, 1ahayagan ng 1artido Iomunista ng 1ilipinas, 1inapatnubayan ng -ar.ismo, 0eninismo Iaisipang -ao 888Jedong dated *ecember :1, 19A0, marked as &.hibit ECE, and another pamphlet 6sdang 1amantalaang -asa sa %abagatang -indanao, -arch and 6pril 19A1 issue, consisting of ten 10! pages, marked as &.hibit E*E for the prosecution/ 6ccused, "hen confronted "ith the firearm &.hibit E6E, after its recovery, readily admitted the same as issued to him by 3estor Jimene7, other"ise kno"n as a certain 6lias 1edipol, allegedly team leader of the sparro" unit of 3e" 1eople's 6rmy, responsible in the li8uidation of target personalities, opposed to 316 +deological movement, an e.ample "as the killing of the late -ayor 0lanos and Barangay Captain of 4ienda 6playa *igos, *avao del ,ur/ 4,3, pages 1-12, %earing-)ctober 1?,19A<!/ 4o prove accused's subversive activities, Cesar -asamlok, a former 316 convert "as presented, "ho declared that on -arch B, 19B<, in his former residence at 4iguman *igos, *avao del ,ur, accused 'uben Burgos, accompanied by his companions 0andrino Burgos, )scar @ome7 and 6ntonio Burgos, "ent to his house at about 9#00 o'clock 1/-/ and called him do"nstair/ 4hereupon, accused told -asamlok, their purpose "as to ask rice and one 1! peso from him, as his contribution to their companions, the 316 of "hich he is no" a member/ 4,3, pages B0, B1, B<, %earing-January ?, 19A:!/ 6ccused and his companions told -asamlok, he has to >oin their group other"ise, he and his family "ill be killed/ %e "as also "arned not to reveal anything "ith the government authorities/ Because of the threat to his life and family, Cesar -asamlok >oined the group/ 6ccused then told him, he should attend a seminar scheduled on 6pril 19, 19A</ 6long "ith this invitation, accused pulled gut from his "aistline a /:A caliber revolver "hich -asamlok really sa", being only about t"o <! meters a"ay from accused, "hich make him easily +dentified said firearm, as that marked as &.hibit E6E for the prosecution/ 4,3, pages B<, B:, and B?, %earing-January ?, 19A:!/ )n 6pril 19, 19A<, as previously invited, -asamlok, accompanied by his father, -atuguil -asamlok, +sabel +lan and 6yok +des "ent to the house of accused and attended the seminar, 4hose present in the seminar "ere# accused 'uben Burgos, 6ntonio Burgos, )scar @ome7, 0andrino Burgos, alias 1edipol and one alias Jamper/ 4he first speaker "as accused 'uben Burgos, "ho said very distinctly that he is an 316 together "ith his companions, to assure the unity of the civilian/ 4hat he encouraged the group to overthro" the government, emphasi7ing that those "ho attended the seminar "ere already members of the 316, and if they reveal to the authorities, they "ill be killed/ 6ccused, "hile talking, sho"ed to the audience pamphlets and documents, then finally shouted, the 316 "ill be victorious/ -asamlok like"ise +dentified the pamphlets as those marked as &.h/ e.hibits EBE, ECE, and E*E for the prosecution/ 4,3, pages B9, B2 and BB, %earing-January ?, 19A:! )ther speakers in said meeting "ere 1edipol, Jamper and )scar @ome7, "ho like"ise e.pounded their o"n opinions about the 316/ +t "as also announced in said seminar that a certain 4onio Burgos, "ill be responsible for the collection of the contribution from the members/ 4,3, pages BA-B9, %earing- January ?, 19A:! )n -ay 1<, 19A<, ho"ever, Cesar -asamlok surrendered to Captain Bargio of the 1rovincial %ead8uarters of the 1hilippine Constabulary, *igos, *avao del ,ur/ 6ssistant 1rovincial (iscal 1anfilo 0ovitos "as presented t prove that on -ay 19, 19A<, he administered the subscription of th e.tra->udicial confession of accused 'uben Burgos, marked as &.hibit E& E for the prosecution, consisting of five 9! pages/ 6ppearing voluntarily in said office, for the subscription of his confession, (iscal 0ovitos, reali7ing that accused "as not represented by counsel, re8uested the services of 6tty/ 6nyog, "hose office is ad>acent to the (iscal's )ffice, to assist accused in the subscription of his e.tra->udicial statement/ 6tty/ 6nyog assisted accused in the reading of his confession from &nglish to Fisayan language, resulting to the deletion of 8uestion 3o/ 19 of the document, by an inserted certification of 6tty/ 6nyog and signature of accused, indicating his having understood, the allegations of his e.tra->udicial statement/ (iscal 0ovitos, before accused signed his statement, e.plained to him his constitutional rights to remain silent, right to counsel and right to ans"er any 8uestion propounded or not/

$ith the aid of 6tty/ 6nyog, accused signed his confession in the presence of 6tty/ 6nyog and (iscal 0ovitos, "ithout the presence of military authorities, "ho escorted the accused, but "ere sent outside the cubicle of (iscal 0ovitos "hile "aiting for the accused/ 4,3, pages :2-?0, nearing 3ovember 19, 19A<! (inally, in order to prove illegal possession by accused of the sub>ect firearm, ,gt/ &pifanio Comabig in-charge of firearms and e.plosives, 3C) %ead8uarter, 1hilippine Constabulary, *igos, *avao del ,ur, "as presented and testified, that among the lists of firearm holders in *avao del ,ur, nothing "as listed in the name of accused 'uben Burgos, neither "as his name included among the lists of persons "ho applied for the licensing of the firearm under 1residential *ecree 3o/ 1B?9/ 6fter the above-testimony the prosecution formally closed its case and offered its e.hibits, "hich "ere all admitted in evidence, despite ob>ection interposed by counsel for accused, "hich "as accordingly overruled/ )n the other hand, the defendant-appellant's version of the case against him is stated in the decision as follo"s# (rom his farm, the military personnel, "hom he said he cannot recogni7e, brought him to the 1C Barracks at *igos, *avao del ,ur, and arrived there at about :#00 o'clock, on the same date/ 6t about A#00 o'clock 1/-/, in the evening, he "as investigated by soldiers, "hom he cannot +dentify because they "ere "earing a civilian attire/ 4,3, page 1? 1, %earing-June 19, 19A:! 4he investigation "as conducted in the 1C barracks, "here he "as detained "ith respect to the sub>ect firearm, "hich the investigator, "ished him to admit but accused denied its o"nership/ Because of his refusal accused "as mauled, hitting him on the left and right side of his body "hich rendered him unconscious/ 6ccused in an atmosphere of tersed solemnity, crying and "ith emotional attachment, described in detail ho" he "as tortured and the ordeals he "as sub>ected/ %e said, after recovery of his consciousness, he "as again confronted "ith sub>ect firearm, &.hibit E6E, for him to admit and "hen he repeatedly refused to accept as his o"n firearm, he "as sub>ected to further prolong sic! torture and physical agony/ 6ccused said, his eyes "ere covered "ith "et black cloth "ith pungent effect on his eyes/ %e "as undressed, "ith only blindfold, pungent "ater poured in his body and over his private parts, making his entire body, particularly his penis and testicle, terribly irritating "ith pungent pain/ 6ll along, he "as investigated to obtain his admission, 4he process of beating, mauling, pain and=or ordeal "as repeatedly done in similar cycle, from -ay 1: and 1?, 19A</ intercepted only "henever he fell unconscious and again repeated after recovery of his senses, (inally on -ay 19, 19A<, after undergoing the same torture and physical ordeal he "as seriously "arned, if he "ill still adamantly refuse to accept o"nership of the sub>ect firearm, he "ill be salvaged, and no longer able to bear any further the pain and agony, accused admitted o"nership of sub>ect firearm/ 6fter his admission, the mauling and torture stopped, but accused "as made to sign his affidavit marked as &.hibit E&E for the prosecution, consisting of five 9! pages, including the certification of the administering officer, 4,3, pages 1?1-1?A, %earing-June 19, 19A:! +n addition to ho" he described the torture inflicted on him, accused, by "ay of e.planation and commentary in details, and going one by one, the allegations and=or contents of his alleged e.tra>udicial statement, attributed his ans"ers to those 8uestions involuntarily made only because of fear, threat and intimidation of his person and family, as a result of unbearable e.cruciating pain he "as sub>ected by an investigator, "ho, unfortunately he cannot +dentify and "as able to obtain his admission of the sub>ect firearm, by force and violence e.erted over his person/ 4o support denial of accused of being involved in any subversive activities, and also to support his denial to the truth of his alleged e.tra->udicial confession, particularly 8uestions 3os/ :9, :A, ?1, ?<, ?:, ??, ?9, ?2 and ?B, along "ith 888s ans"ers to those 8uestions, involving %onorata 6rellano ahas +nday 6rellano, said %onorata 6rellano appeared and declared categorically, that the above-8uestions embraced in the numbers allegedly stated in the e.tra>udicial confession of accused, involving her to such 316 personalities, as Jamper, 1ol, 6nthony, etc/, "ere not true because on the date referred on 6pril <A, 19A<, none of the persons mentioned came to her house for treatment, neither did she meet the accused nor able to talk "ith him/ 4,3, pages 11A- 1<1, %earing--ay 1A, 19A:! ,he, ho"ever, admitted being familiar "ith one )scar @ome7, and that she "as personally charged "ith subversion in the )ffice of the 1rovincial Commander, 1hilippine Constabulary, *igos, *avao del ,ur, but said charge "as dismissed "ithout reaching the Court/ ,he like"ise stated that her son, 'ogelio 6rellano, "as like"ise charged for subversion filed in the -unicipal 4rial Court of *igos, *avao del ,ur, but "as like"ise dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction/ 4,3, pages 1<1-1<<, in relation to her cross-e.amination, %earing--ay 1A, 19A:!

4o support accused's denial of the charge against him, Barangay Captain of 4iguman, *igos, *avao del ,ur, ,alvador 888@alaraga "as presented, "ho declared, he "as not personally a"are of any subversive activities of accused, being his neighbor and member of his barrio/ )n the contrary, he can personally attest to his good character and reputation, as a la" abiding citi7en of his barrio, being a carpenter and farmer thereat/ 4,l pages 1<A-1<9, %earing--ay 1A, 19A:! %e ho"ever, admitted in cross-e.amination, that there "ere a lot of arrests made by the authorities in his barrio involving subversive activities but they "ere released and "ere not formally charged in Court because they publicly took their oath of allegiance "ith the government/ 4,3, pages 1::-1:?, in relation to page 1:2, %earing--ay 1A, 19A:! (inally, to support accused's denial of the sub>ect firearm, his "ife, Crbana Burgos, "as presented and "ho testified that the sub>ect firearm "as left in their house by Cesar -asamlok and one 1edipol on -ay 10, 19A</ +t "as night time, "hen the t"o left the gun, alleging that it "as not in order, and that they "ill leave it behind, temporarily for them to claim it later/ 4hey "ere the ones "ho buried it/ ,he said, her husband, the accused, "as 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/ 4,3, page <?, 3ovember <<, 19A:! )n cross-e.amination, she said, even if -asamlok during the recovery of the firearm, "as "earing a mask, she can still +dentify him/ 4,3, page 2, %earing-3ovember <<, 19A:! 6fter the above-testimony, accused through counsel formally rested his case in support of accused's through counsel manifestation for the demurrer to evidence of the prosecution, or in the alternative for violation merely of simple illegal possession of firearm, 'under the 'evised 6dministrative Code, as amended by 'epublic 6ct 3o/ ?, reflected in the manifestation of counsel for accused/ 4,3, pages 11:-11?, %earing--ay 1A, 19A:! 6ccused-appellant 'uben Burgos no" raises the follo"ing assignments of error, to "it# + 4%& 4'+60 C)C'4 &''&* +3 %)0*+3@ 4%64 ,+C! 4%& 6''&,4 )( 6CCC,&*-611&00634 $+4%)C4 F60+* $6''634 4) B& 06$(C0/ ++ 4%& 4'+60 C)C'4 &''&* +3 %)0*+3@ 4%& ,&6'C% +3 4%& %)C,& )( 6CCC,&*-611&00634 ()' (+'&6'- $+4%)C4 F60+* $6''634 4) B& 06$(C0/ +++ 4%& 4'+60 C)C'4 &''&* +3 %)0*+3@ 6CCC,&*-611&00634 @C+04D B&D)3* '&6,)36B0& *)CB4 ()' F+)064+)3 )( 1/*/ 3o/ 9 +3 '&064+)3 4) @&3&'60 )'*&', 3),/ 2 63* B $as the arrest of 'uben Burgos la"fulK $ere the search of his house and the subse8uent confiscation of a firearm and documents allegedly found therein conducted in a la"ful and valid mannerK *oes the evidence sustaining the crime charged meet the test of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubtK 4he records of the case disclose that "hen the police authorities "ent to the house of 'uben Burgos for the purpose of arresting him upon information given by Cesar -asamlok that the accused allegedly recruited him to >oin the 3e" 1eople's 6rmy 316!, they did not have any "arrant of arrest or search "arrant "ith them 4,3, p/ <9, )ctober 1?, 19A<; and 4,3, p/ 21, 3ovember 19, 19A<!/ 6rticle +F, ,ection : of the Constitution provides# 4he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei7ures of "hatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search "arrant or "arrant of arrest shall issue e.cept upon probable cause to be determined by the >udge, or such other responsible officer as may be authori7ed by la", after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the "itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sei7ed/ 4he constitutional provision is a safeguard against "anton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy and liberty of a citi7en as to his person, papers and effects/ 4his Court e.plained in 3illanueva vs. 7uerubin ?A ,C'6 :?9! "hy this right is so important# +t is deference to one's personality that lies at the core of this right, but it could be also looked upon as a recognition of a constitutionally protected area, primarily one's home, but not necessarily thereto confined/ Cf/ %offa v/ Cnited ,tates, :A9 C, <9: L19221! $hat is sought to be guarded is a man's prerogative to choose "ho is allo"ed entry to his residence/ +n that haven of refuge, his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of "ho shall be "elcome but like"ise in the kind of ob>ects he "ants around him/ 4here the state, ho"ever po"erful, does not as such have access e.cept under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, ho"ever humble, is his castle/ 4hus is outla"ed any un"arranted intrusion by government, "hich is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his d"elling and to respect the privacies of his life, Cf/ ,chmerber v/ California, :A? C, B9B L1922M, Brennan, J/ and Boyd v/ Cnited ,tates, 112 C, 212, 2:0 L1AA2M!/ +n the same

vein, 0andynski in his authoritative "ork ,earch and ,ei7ure and the ,upreme Court L1922M, could fitly characteri7e this constitutional right as the embodiment of a 'spiritual concept# the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and to afford its constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no legs than to value human dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed e.cept in case of overriding social need, and then only under stringent procedural safeguards/' Ibi , p/ ?B!/ 4he trial court >ustified the arrest of the accused-appelant "ithout any "arrant as falling under one of the instances "hen arrests may be validly made "ithout a "arrant/ 'ule 11:, ,ection 2 N of the 'ules of Court, provides the e.ceptions as follo"s# a! $hen the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; b! $hen an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it; c! $hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner "ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place "here he is serving final >udgment or temporarily confined "hile his case is pending or has escaped "hile being transferred from one confinement to another/ 4he Court stated that even if there "as no "arrant for the arrest of Burgos, the fact that Ethe authorities received an urgent report of accused's involvement in subversive activities from a reliable source report of Cesar -asamlok! the circumstances of his arrest, even "ithout >udicial "arrant, is la"fully "ithin the ambit of ,ection 2-6 of 'ule 11: of the 'ules of Court and applicable >urisprudence on the matter/E +f the arrest is valid, the conse8uent search and sei7ure of the firearm and the alleged subversive documents "ould become an incident to a la"ful arrest as provided by 'ule 1<2, ,ection 1<, "hich states# 6 person charged "ith an offense may be searched for dangerous "eapons or anything "hich may be used as proof of the commission of the offense/ 4he conclusions reached by the trial court are erroneous/ Cnder ,ection 2 a! of 'ule 11:, the officer arresting a person "ho has >ust committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal kno"ledge of that fact/ 4he offense must also be committed in his presence or "ithin his vie"/ ,ayo v/ Chief of 1olice, A0 1hil/ A99!/ 4here is no such personal kno"ledge in this case/ $hatever kno"ledge "as possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar -asamlok/ 4he location of the firearm "as given by the appellant's "ife/ 6t the time of the appellant's arrest, he "as not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document/ 3either "as he committing any act "hich could be described as subversive/ %e "as, in fact, plo"ing his field at the time of the arrest/ 4he right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable sei7ure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one/ 4he statute or rule "hich allo"s e.ceptions to the re8uirement of "arrants of arrest is strictly construed/ 6ny e.ception must clearly fall "ithin the situations "hen securing a "arrant "ould be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the 'ule/ $e cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests "ithout "arrant or e.tend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by la"/ 4o do so "ould infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection/ 4he ,olicitor @eneral is of the persuasion that the arrest may still be considered la"ful under ,ection 2 b! using the test of reasonableness/ %e submits that/ the information given by Cesar -asamlok "as sufficient to induce a reasonable ground that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof/ +n arrests "ithout a "arrant under ,ection 2 b!, ho"ever, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime/ 6 crime must in fact or actuall! have been committed first/ 4hat a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition/ +t is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed/ 4he fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed/ 4he test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator/ +n this case, the accused "as arrested on the sole basis of -asamlok's verbal report/ -asamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime/ 4hey "ere still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained/ 4he subse8uent recovery of the sub>ect firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened "ife cannot make the arrest la"ful, +f an arrest "ithout "arrant is unla"ful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered after"ards can make it la"ful/ 4he fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted/

-ore important, "e find no compelling reason for the haste "ith "hich the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused/ $e fail to see "hy they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a "arrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime/ 4here is no sho"ing that there "as a real apprehension that the accused "as on the verge of flight or escape/ 0ike"ise, there is no sho"ing that the "hereabouts of the accused "ere unkno"n, 4he basis for the action taken by the arresting officer "as the verbal report made by -asamlok "ho "as not re8uired to subscribe his allegations under oath/ 4here "as no compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges under pain of criminal prosecution/ 4,3, p/ <?, )ctober 1?, 19A<!/ Conse8uently, the need to go through the process of securing a search "arrant and a "arrant of arrest becomes even more clear/ 4he arrest of the accused "hile he "as plo"ing his field is illegal/ 4he arrest being unla"ful, the search and sei7ure "hich transpired after"ards could not like"ise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest/ 3either can it be presumed that there "as a "aiver, or that consent "as given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed to ob>ect/ 4o constitute a "aiver, it must appear first that the right e.ists; secondly, that the person involved had kno"ledge, actual or constructive, of the e.istence of such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relin8uish the right 1asion Fda/ de @arcia v/ 0ocsin, 29 1hil/ 2A9!/ 4he fact that the accused failed to ob>ect to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein -agoncia v/ 1alacio, A0 1hil/ BB0!/ 6s pointed out by Justice 0aurel in the case of 8asion 3 a. e Garcia 3. 9ocsin (supra) ... ... ... / / / 6s the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citi7en, the courts do not place the citi7en in the position of either contesting an officer's authority by force, or "aiving his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or sei7ure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the la"/ 92 C/J/, pp/ 11A0, 11A1!/ $e apply the rule that# Ecourts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and that "e do not presume ac8uiescence in the loss of fundamental rights/E Johnson v/ Jerbst :0? C/,/ ?9A!/ 4hat the accused-appellant "as not apprised of any of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest is evident from the records# 6 C606-B6# G $hen you "ent to the area to arrest 'uben Burgos, you "ere not armed "ith an arrest "arrantK 6 3one ,ir/ G 3either "ere you armed "ith a search "arrantK 6 3o ,ir/ G 6s a matter of fact, Burgos "as not present in his house "hen you "ent thereK 6 But he "as t"enty meters a"ay from his house/ G 'uben Burgos "as then plo"ing his fieldK 6 Des ,ir/ G $hen you called for 'uben Burgos you intervie"ed himK 6 Des ,ir/ G 6nd that you told him that -asamlok implicated himK 6 3o ,ir/ G $hat did you tell himK 6 4hat "e received information that you have a firearm, you surrender that firearm, first he denied but "hen ,gt/ Buncalan intervie"ed his "ife, his "ife told him that it is buried, + dug the firearm "hich "as "rapped "ith a cellophane/ G +n your intervie" of Burgos you did not remind him of his rights under the constitution considering that he "as purposely under arrestK 6 + did not/ G 6s a matter of fact, he denied that he has ever a gunK 6 Des ,ir/ G 6s a matter of fact, the gun "as not in his possessionK 6 +t "as buried do"n in his horse/ G 6s a matter of fact, Burgos did not point to "here it "as buriedK 6 Des ,ir/ 4,3, pp/ <9-<2, %earing-)ctober 1?, 19A<! Considering that the 8uestioned firearm and the alleged subversive documents "ere obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and sei7ures, it follo"s that they are inadmissible as evidence/ 4here is another aspect of this case/

+n proving o"nership of the 8uestioned firearm and alleged subversive documents, the prosecution presented the t"o arresting officers "ho testified that the accused readily admitted o"nership of the gun after 888s "ife pointed to the place "here it "as buried/ 4he officers stated that it "as the accused himself "ho voluntarily pointed to the place "here the alleged subversive documents "ere hidden/ 6ssuming this to be true, it should be recalled that the accused "as never informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest/ ,o that "hen the accused allegedly admitted o"nership of the gun and pointed to the location of the subversive documents after 8uestioning, the admissions "ere obtained in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under ,ec/ <0 of 6rt/ +F of the Bill of 'ights "inch provides# 3o person shall be compelled to be a "itness against himself/ 6ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right// / / 4he Constitution itself mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible in evidence/ Conse8uently, the testimonies of the arresting officers as to the admissions made by the appellant cannot be used against him/ 4he trial court validly re>ected the e.tra->udicial confession of the accused as inadmissible in evidence/ 4he court stated that the appellant's having been e.haustively sub>ected to physical terror, violence, and third degree measures may not have been supported by reliable evidence but the failure to present the investigator "ho conducted the investigation gives rise to the Eprovocative presumptionE that indeed torture and physical violence may have been committed as stated/ 4he accused-appellant "as not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation/ 4he lo"er court correctly pointed out that the securing of counsel, 6tty/ 6nyog, to help the accused "hen he subscribed under oath to his statement at the (iscal's )ffice "as too late/ +t could have no palliative effect/ +t cannot cure the absence of counsel at the time of the custodial investigation "hen the e.tra>udicial statement "as being taken/ $ith the e.tra->udicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents inadmissible in evidence against the accused-appellant, the only remaining proof to sustain the charge of +llegal 1ossession of (irearm in (urtherance of ,ubversion is the testimony of Cesar -asamlok/ $e find the testimony of -asamlok inade8uate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt/ +t is true that the trial court found -asamlok's testimony credible and convincing/ %o"ever, "e are not necessarily bound by the credibility "hich the trial court attaches to a particular "itness/ 6s stated in 8eople vs.. 2abrera 100 ,C'6 ?<?!# ... ... ... / / /4ime and again "e have stated that "hen it comes to 8uestion of credibility the findings of the trial court are entitled to great respect upon appeal for the obvious reason thOat it "as able to observe the demeanor, actuations and deportment of the "itnesses during the trial/ But "e have also said that this rule is not absolute for other"ise there "ould be no reversals of convictions upon appeal/ $e must re>ect the findings of the trial court "here the record discloses circumstances of "eight and substance "hich "ere not properly appreciated by the trial court/ 4he situation under "hich Cesar -asamlok testified is analogous to that found in 8eople vs. 2apa ocia 1B ,C'6 9A 1!# / / / 4he case against appellant is built on 4ernura's testimony, and the issue hinges on ho" much credence can be accorded to him/ 4he first consideration is that said testimony stands uncorroborated/ 4ernura "as the only "itness "ho testified on the mimeographing incident/ / / / ... ... ... / / /%e "as a confessed %uk under detention at the time/ %e kne" his fate depended upon ho" much he cooperated "ith the authorities, "ho "ere then engaged in a vigorous anti-dissident campaign/ 6s in the case of 'odrigo de Jesus, "hose testimony $e discounted for the same reason, that of 4ernura cannot be considered as proceeding from a totally unbiased source/ / / / +n the instant case, -asamlok's testimony "as totally uncorroborated/ Considering that -asamlok surrendered to the military certainly his fate depended on ho" eagerly he cooperated "ith the authorities/ )ther"ise, he "ould also be charged "ith subversion/ 4he trade-off appears to be his membership in the Civil %ome *efense (orce/ 4,3, p/ A:, January ?, 19A:!/ -asamlok may be considered as an interested "itness/ +t can not be said that his testimony is free from the opportunity and temptation to be e.aggerated and even fabricated for it "as intended to secure his freedom/

*espite the fact that there "ere other persons present during the alleged 316 seminar of 6pril 19, 19A< i/e/, -asamlok's father ,-atuguil -asamlok, +sabel +lan and 6yok +des 4,3, p/ B?, January ?, 19A:! "ho could have corroborated Cesar -asamlok's testimony that the accused used the gun in furtherance of subversive activities or actually engaged in subversive acts, the prosecution never presented any other "itness/ 4his Court is, therefore, constrained to rule that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt/ 6s held in the case of 8eople vs. 1aia :? ,C'6 :?B!# +t is evident that once again, reliance can be placed on 8eople v. $ra*a!o ?< ,C'6 99!, "here after stressing that accusation is not, according to the fundamental la", synonymous "ith guilt, it "as made clear# ')nly if the >udge belo" and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an e.acting test should the sentence be one of conviction/ +t is thus re8uired that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account/ 4he proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to s"ay >udgment/ 4he conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime/ $hat is re8uired then is moral certainty/' Ibi " 2?/ Cf/ 1eople v/ 6lvare7, 99 ,C'6 A1; 1eople v/ Joven, 2? ,C'6 1<2; 1eople vs/ 'amire7, 29 ,C'6 1??; 1eople vs/ @odov B< ,C'6 29; 1eople v/ 0ope7, B? ,C'6 <09; 1eople v/ 1oblador, B2 ,C'6 2:?; 1eople v/ Guia7on, BA ,C'6 91:; 1eople v/ 3a7areno, A0 ,C'6 ?A?; 1eople vs/ @abilan 119 ,C'6 1; 1eople v/ @abiana, 11B ,C'6 <20; and 1eople vs/ +banga 1<? ,C'6 29B!/ $e are a"are of the serious problems faced by the military in *avao del ,ur "here there appears to be a "ellorgani7ed plan to overthro" the @overnment through armed struggle and replace it "ith an alien system based on a foreign ideology/ 4he open defiance against duly constituted authorities has resulted in unfortunate levels of violence and human suffering publici7ed all over the country and abroad/ &ven as "e reiterate the need for all freedom loving citi7ens to assist the military authorities in their legitimate efforts to maintain peace and national security, "e must also remember the dictum in :orales vs. Enrile 1 <1 ,C'6 9:A, 929! "hen this Court stated# $hile the government should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the la"less "ith an the means at its command, it should al"ays be remembered that "hatever action is taken must al"ays be "ithin the frame"ork of our Constitution and our la"s/ Fiolations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion/ 6 cavalier attitude to"ards constitutional liberties and protections "ill only fan the increase of subversive activities instead of containing and suppressing them/ $%&'&()'&, the >udgment of conviction rendered by the trial court is '&F&',&* and ,&4 6,+*&/ 4he accusedappellant is hereby 6CGC+44&*, on grounds of reasonable doubt, of the crime "ith "hich he has been charged/ 4he sub>ect firearm involved in this case homemade revolver, caliber /:A, ,mith and $esson, "ith ,erial 3o/ A/29<<1! and the alleged subversive documents are ordered disposed of in accordance "ith la"/ Cost de oficio/ ,) )'*&'&*/

as Ethe sub>ect of the offense; stolen or embe77led and proceeds or fruits of the offense,E or Eused or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense,E "hich is described in the applications adverted to above as Eviolation of Central Bank 0a"s, 4ariff and Customs 0a"s, +nternal 'evenue Code! and the 'evised 1enal Code/E 6lleging that the aforementioned search "arrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution and the 'ules of Court 5 because, inter alia# 1! they do not describe "ith particularity the documents, books and things to be sei7ed; <! cash money, not mentioned in the "arrants, "ere actually sei7ed; :! the "arrants "ere issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them; ?! the searches and sei7ures "ere made in an illegal manner; and 9! the documents, papers and cash money sei7ed "ere not delivered to the courts that issued the "arrants, to be disposed of in accordance "ith la" 5 on -arch <0, 192<, said petitioners filed "ith the ,upreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition, *an a*us and in>unction, and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present case, a "rit of preliminary in>unction be issued restraining 'espondents-1rosecutors, their agents and =or representatives from using the effects sei7ed as aforementioned or any copies thereof, in the deportation cases already adverted to, and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be rendered 8uashing the contested search "arrants and declaring the same null and void, and commanding the respondents, their agents or representatives to return to petitioners herein, in accordance "ith ,ection :, 'ule 2B, of the 'ules of Court, the documents, papers, things and cash moneys sei7ed or confiscated under the search "arrants in 8uestion/ +n their ans"er, respondents-prosecutors alleged, 2 1! that the contested search "arrants are valid and have been issued in accordance "ith la"; <! that the defects of said "arrants, if any, "ere cured by petitioners' consent; and :! that, in any event, the effects sei7ed are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and sei7ures/ )n -arch <<, 192<, this Court issued the "rit of preliminary in>unction prayed for in the petition/ %o"ever, by resolution dated June <9, 192<, the "rit "as partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and things sei7ed from the offices of the corporations above mentioned are concerned; but, the in>unction "as maintained as regards the papers, documents and things found and sei7ed in the residences of petitioners herein/ B 4hus, the documents, papers, and things sei7ed under the alleged authority of the "arrants in 8uestion may be split into t"o <! ma>or groups, namely# a! those found and sei7ed in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and b! those found and sei7ed in the residences of petitioners herein/ 6s regards the first group, "e hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested "arrants and of the sei7ures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and "hatever the offices they hold therein may be/A +ndeed, it is "ell settled that the legality of a sei7ure can be contested onl! by the party "hose rights have been impaired thereby, 9 and that the ob>ection to an unla"ful search and sei7ure is purel! personal and cannot be availed of by third parties/ 10 Conse8uently, petitioners herein may not validly ob>ect to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things sei7ed from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to ob>ect to the admission of said papers in evidence belongsexclusivel! to the corporations, to "hom the sei7ed effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity/ 11 +ndeed, it has been held# / / / that the @overnment's action in gaining possession of papers belonging to the corporation did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants/ +f these papers "ere unla"fully sei7ed and thereby the constitutional rights of or any one "ere invaded, they "ere the rights of the corporation and not the rights of the other efen ants/ 3e.t, it is clear that a 8uestion of the la"fulness of a sei7ure can be raised onl! by one whose rights have been inva e / Certainly, such a sei7ure, if unla"ful, could not affect the constitutional rights of defendants whose propert! ha not been seize or the privac! of whose ho*es ha not been isturbe ; nor could they claim for themselves the benefits of the (ourth 6mendment, "hen its violation, if any, "as "ith reference to the rights of another/ Re*us vs. -nite %tates C/C/6/!<91 (/ 901, 911/ +t follo"s, therefore, that the 8uestion of the admissibility of the evidence based on an alleged unla"ful search and sei7ure does not e.tend to the personal defendants but embraces onl! the corporation "hose property "as taken/ / / / 6 @uckenheimer P Bros/ Co/ vs/ Cnited ,tates, L19<9M : (/ <d/ BA2, BA9, &mphasis supplied/! $ith respect to the documents, papers and things sei7ed in the residences of petitioners herein, the aforementioned resolution of June <9, 192<, lifted the "rit of preliminary in>unction previously issued by this Court, 1< thereby, in effect, restraining herein 'espondents-1rosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners herein/ +n connection "ith said documents, papers and things, t"o <! important 8uestions need be settled, namely# 1! "hether the search "arrants in 8uestion, and the searches and sei7ures made under the authority thereof, are valid or not, and <! if the ans"er to the preceding 8uestion is in the negative, "hether said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners herein/&;wph<&.=>t

&'o(e)ill vs. *io+(o (G.R. No. L-1955,)./N."P.!/N$ C.J.: Cpon application of the officers of the government named on the margin 1 5 hereinafter referred to as 'espondents1rosecutors 5 several >udges< 5 hereinafter referred to as 'espondents-Judges 5 issued, on different dates, : a total of ?< search "arrants against petitioners herein ? and=or the corporations of "hich they "ere officers, 9 directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above-named and=or the premises of their offices, "arehouses and=or residences, and to sei7e and take possession of the follo"ing personal property to "it# Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, >ournals, portfolios, credit >ournals, type"riters, and other documents and=or papers sho"ing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins cigarette "rappers!/

C'+-&, 6@6+3,4 (C3*6-&3460 06$, )( 4%& ,464& ,&6'C% $6''634, -60+C+)C,0D )B46+3&*!

1etitioners maintain that the aforementioned search "arrants are in the nature of general "arrants and that accordingly, the sei7ures effected upon the authority there of are null and void/ +n this connection, the Constitution1: provides# 4he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei7ures shall not be violated, and no "arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the >udge after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the "itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sei7ed/ 4"o points must be stressed in connection "ith this constitutional mandate, namely# 1! that no "arrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the >udge in the manner set forth in said provision; and <! that the "arrant shall particularl! describe the things to be sei7ed/ 3one of these re8uirements has been complied "ith in the contested "arrants/ +ndeed, the same "ere issued upon applications stating that the natural and >uridical person therein named had committed a Eviolation of Central Ban 0a"s, 4ariff and Customs 0a"s, +nternal 'evenue Code! and 'evised 1enal Code/E +n other "ords, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications/ 4he averments thereof "ith respect to the offense committed "ere abstract/ 6s a conse8uence, it "as i*possible for the >udges "ho issued the "arrants to have found the e.istence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against "hom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal la"s/ 6s a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners/ +t "ould be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a Eviolation of Central Bank 0a"s, 4ariff and Customs 0a"s, +nternal 'evenue Code! and 'evised 1enal Code,E 5 as alleged in the aforementioned applications 5 "ithout reference to any determinate provision of said la"s or 4o uphold the validity of the "arrants in 8uestion "ould be to "ipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it "ould place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the "hims caprice or passion of peace officers/ 4his is precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision above 8uoted 5 to outla" the so-called general "arrants/ +t is not difficult to imagine "hat "ould happen, in times of keen political strife, "hen the party in po"er feels that the minority is likely to "rest it, even though by legal means/ ,uch is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection "ith the disputed search "arrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend ,ection : of 'ule 1<< of the former 'ules of Court 1? by providing in its counterpart, under the 'evised 'ules of Court 19 that Ea search "arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense/E 3ot satisfied "ith this 8ualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that Eno search "arrant shall issue for more than one specific offense/E 4he grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search "arrants "as compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and sei7ed, to "it# Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, >ournals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit >ournals, type"riters, and other documents and=or papers sho"ing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements/ 4hus, the "arrants authori7ed the search for and sei7ure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of "hether the transactions "ere legal or illegal/ 4he "arrants sanctioned the sei7ure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, "hatever their nature, thus openly contravening the e.plicit command of our Bill of 'ights 5 that the things to be sei7ed be particularl! described 5 as "ell as tending to defeat its ma>or ob>ective# the elimination of general "arrants/ 'elying upon :onca o vs. 8eople?s 2ourt A0 1hil/ 1!, 'espondents-1rosecutors maintain that, even if the searches and sei7ures under consideration "ere unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus sei7ed are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein/ Cpon mature deliberation, ho"ever, "e are unanimously of the opinion that the position taken in the -oncado case must be abandoned/ ,aid position "as in line "ith the 6merican common la" rule, that the criminal should not be allo"ed to go free merely Ebecause the constable has blundered,E 12 upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and sei7ures is protected by means other than the e.clusion of evidence unla"fully obtained, 1B such as the common-la" action for damages against the searching officer, against the party "ho procured the issuance of the search "arrant and against those assisting in the e.ecution of an illegal search, their criminal punishment, resistance, "ithout liability to an unla"ful sei7ure, and such other legal remedies as may be provided by other la"s/ %o"ever, most common la" >urisdictions have already given up this approach and eventually adopted the e.clusionary rule, reali7ing that this is the onl! practical *eans of enforcing the constitutional in5unction against unreasonable searches and sei7ures/ +n the language of Judge 0earned %and#

6s "e understand it, the reason for the e.clusion of evidence competent as such, "hich has been unla"fully ac8uired, is that e.clusion is the only practical "ay of enforcing the constitutional privilege/ +n earlier times the action of trespass against the offending official may have been protection enough; but that is true no longer/ )nly in case the prosecution "hich itself controls the sei7ing officials, kno"s that it cannot profit b! their wrong will that wrong be represse /1A +n fact, over thirty :0! years before, the (ederal ,upreme Court had already declared# +f letters and private documents can thus be sei7ed and held and used in evidence against a citi7en accused of an offense, the protection of the ?th 6mendment, declaring his rights to be secure against such searches and sei7ures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as "ell be stricken from the Constitution/ @he efforts of the courts an their officials to bring the guilt! to punish*ent" praiseworth! as the! are" are not to be ai e b! the sacrifice of those great principles establishe b! !ears of en eavor an suffering which have resulte in their e*bo i*ent in the fun a*ental law of the lan /19 4his vie" "as, not only reiterated, but, also, broadened in subse8uent decisions on the same (ederal Court/ revie"ing previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in :app vs. 4hio supra/!#
<0

6fter

/ / / 4oday "e once again e.amine the $olf's constitutional documentation of the right of privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion, and after its do7en years on our books, are led by it to close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official la"lessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unla"ful conduct/ $e hold that all evidence obtained by searches and sei7ures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a ,tate/ ,ince the (ourth 6mendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the ,tates through the *ue 1rocess Clause of the (ourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of e.clusion as it used against the (ederal @overnment/ $ere it other"ise, then >ust as "ithout the $eeks rule the assurance against unreasonable federal searches and sei7ures "ould be Ea form of "ords,E valueless and underserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule the free o* fro* state invasions of privac! woul be so ephe*eral an so neatl! severe fro* its conceptual nexus with the free o* fro* all brutish *eans of coercing evi ence as not to per*it this 2ourt?s high regar as a free o* Ei*plicit in the concept of or ere libert!/E 6t the time that the Court held in $olf that the amendment "as applicable to the ,tates through the *ue 1rocess Clause, the cases of this Court as "e have seen, had steadfastly held that as to federal officers the (ourth 6mendment included the e.clusion of the evidence sei7ed in violation of its provisions/ &ven $olf Estoutly adheredE to that proposition/ 4he right to "hen conceded operatively enforceable against the ,tates, "as not susceptible of destruction by avulsion of the sanction upon "hich its protection and en>oyment had al"ays been deemed dependent under the Boyd, $eeks and ,ilverthorne Cases/ 4herefore, in e.tending the substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches 5 state or federal 5 it "as logically and constitutionally necessarily that the e.clusion doctrine 5 an essential part of the right to privacy 5 be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right ne"ly recogni7ed by the $olf Case/ +n short, the a *ission of the new constitutional Right b! 0olf coul not tolerate enial of its *ost i*portant constitutional privilege" na*el!" the exclusion of the evi ence which an accuse ha been force to give b! reason of the unlawful seizure. @o hol otherwise is to grant the right but in realit! to withhol its privilege an en5o!*ent / )nly last year the Court itself recogni7ed that the purpose of the exclusionar! rule to Eis to eter . to co*pel respect for the constitutional guarant! in the onl! effectivel! available wa! . b! re*oving the incentive to isregar itE / / / / 4he ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the ,tate tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on "hich the liberties of the people rest/ %aving once recogni7ed that the right to privacy embodied in the (ourth 6mendment is enforceable against the ,tates, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore constitutional in origin, we can no longer per*it that right to re*ain an e*pt! pro*ise/ Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured by its *ue 1rocess Clause, we can no longer per*it it to be revocable at the whi* of an! police officer who" in the na*e of law enforce*ent itself" chooses to suspen its en5o!*ent. 4ur ecision" foun e on reason an truth" gives to the in ivi ual no *ore than that which the 2onstitution guarantees hi* to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforce*ent is entitle " an " to the courts" that 5u icial integrit! so necessar! in the true a *inistration of 5ustice / emphasis ours/! +ndeed, the non-e.clusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional in>unction against unreasonable searches and sei7ures/ 4o be sure, if the applicant for a search "arrant has competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party against "hom the "arrant is intended, then there is no reason "hy the applicant should not comply "ith the re8uirements of the fundamental la"/ Cpon the other hand, if he has no such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the Judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no >ustification for the issuance of the "arrant/ 4he only possible e.planation not >ustification! for its issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime/ But, then, this fishing e.pedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause/

-oreover, the theory that the criminal prosecution of those "ho secure an illegal search "arrant and=or make unreasonable searches or sei7ures "ould suffice to protect the constitutional guarantee under consideration, overlooks the fact that violations thereof are, in general, committed By agents of the party in po"er, for, certainly, those belonging to the minority could not possibly abuse a po"er they do not have/ 'egardless of the handicap under "hich the minority usually 5 but, understandably 5 finds itself in prosecuting agents of the ma>ority, one must not lose sight of the fact that the psychological and moral effect of the possibility <1 of securing their conviction, is "atered do"n by the pardoning po"er of the party for "hose benefit the illegality had been committed/ +n their -otion for 'econsideration and 6mendment of the 'esolution of this Court dated June <9, 192<, petitioners allege that 'ooms 3os/ A1 and 91 of Carmen 6partments, %ouse 3o/ <00A, *e"ey Boulevard, %ouse 3o/ 1?:2, Colorado ,treet, and 'oom 3o/ :0? of the 6rmy-3avy Club, should be included among the premises considered in said 'esolution as residences of herein petitioners, %arry ,/ ,tonehill, 'obert 1/ Brook, John J/ Brooks and Iarl Beck, respectively, and that, furthermore, the records, papers and other effects sei7ed in the offices of the corporations above referred to include personal belongings of said petitioners and other effects under their e.clusive possession and control, for the e.clusion of "hich they have a standing under the latest rulings of the federal courts of federal courts of the Cnited ,tates/ << $e note, ho"ever, that petitioners' theory, regarding their alleged possession of and control over the aforementioned records, papers and effects, and the alleged EpersonalE nature thereof, has Been 6dvanced, notin their petition or amended petition herein, but in the -otion for 'econsideration and 6mendment of the 'esolution of June <9, 192</ +n other "ords, said theory "ould appear to be read>ustment of that follo"ed in said petitions, to suit the approach intimated in the 'esolution sought to be reconsidered and amended/ 4hen, too, some of the affidavits or copies of alleged affidavits attached to said motion for reconsideration, or submitted in support thereof, contain either inconsistent allegations, or allegations inconsistent "ith the theory no" advanced by petitioners herein/ Cpon the other hand, "e are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion for reconsideration, and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in support of said motion, have sufficiently established the facts or conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the petitioners; to "arrant application of the vie"s therein e.pressed, should "e agree thereto/ 6t any rate, "e do not deem it necessary to e.press our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future/ $e hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the -oncado case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned; that the "arrants for the search of three :! residences of herein petitioners, as specified in the 'esolution of June <9, 192<, are null and void; that the searches and sei7ures therein made are illegal; that the "rit of preliminary in>unction heretofore issued, in connection "ith the documents, papers and other effects thus sei7ed in said residences of herein petitioners is hereby made permanent; that the "rits prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers and other effects so sei7ed in the aforementioned residences are concerned; that the aforementioned motion for 'econsideration and 6mendment should be, as it is hereby, denied; and that the petition herein is dismissed and the "rits prayed for denied, as regards the documents, papers and other effects sei7ed in the t"enty-nine <9! places, offices and other premises enumerated in the same 'esolution, "ithout special pronouncement as to costs/ +t is so ordered/ Re!es" A.1.9." $izon" :a+alintal" 1engzon" A.8." Bal ivar an %anchez" AA." concur. .0& R/$ %.$ concurring and dissenting# (rom my analysis of the opinion "ritten by Chief Justice 'oberto Concepcion and from the import of the deliberations of the Court on this case, + gather the follo"ing distinct conclusions# 1/ #ll the search "arrants served by the 3ational Bureau of +nvestigation in this case are general "arrants and are therefore proscribed by, and in violation of, paragraph : of section 1 of 6rticle +++ Bill of 'ights! of the Constitution; </ 6ll the searches and sei7ures conducted under the authority of the said search "arrants "ere conse8uently illegal; :/ 4he non-e.clusionary rule enunciated in :onca o vs. 8eople, A0 1hil/ 1, should be, and is declared, abandoned; ?/ 4he search "arrants served at the three residences of the petitioners are expressl! declared null and void the searches and sei7ures therein made are expressl! declared illegal; and the "rit of preliminary in>unction heretofore issued against the use of the documents, papers and effect sei7ed in the said residences is made permanent; and 9/ 'easoning that the petitioners have not in their pleadings satisfactorily demonstrated that they have legal standing to move for the suppression of the documents, papers and effects sei7ed in the places other than the

three residences adverted to above, the opinion "ritten by the Chief Justice refrains from expressl!declaring as null and void the such "arrants served at such other places and as illegal the searches and sei7ures made therein, and leaves Ethe matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future/E +t is precisely the position taken by the Chief Justice summari7ed in the immediately preceding paragraph numbered 9! "ith "hich + am not in accord/ + do not share his reluctance or un"illingness to e.pressly declare, at this time, the nullity of the search "arrants served at places other than the three residences, and the illegibility of the searches and sei7ures conducted under the authority thereof/ +n my vie" even the e.acerbating passions and pre>udices inordinately generated by the environmental political and moral developments of this case should not deter this Court from forthrightly laying do"n the la" not only for this case but as "ell for future cases and future generations/ #ll the search "arrants, "ithout e.ception, in this case are admittedly general, blanket and roving "arrants and are therefore admittedly and indisputably outla"ed by the Constitution; and the searches and sei7ures made "ere therefore unla"ful/ 4hat the petitioners, let us assume in gratia argu*ente, have no legal standing to ask for the suppression of the papers, things and effects sei7ed from places other than their residences, to my mind, cannot in any manner affect, alter or other"ise modify the intrinsic nullity of the search "arrants and the intrinsic illegality of the searches and sei7ures made thereunder/ $hether or not the petitioners possess legal standing the said "arrants are void and remain void, and the searches and sei7ures "ere illegal and remain illegal/ 3o inference can be dra"n from the "ords of the Constitution that Elegal standingE or the lack of it is a determinant of the nullity or validity of a search "arrant or of the la"fulness or illegality of a search or sei7ure/ )n the 8uestion of legal standing, + am of the conviction that, upon the pleadings submitted to this Court the petitioners have the re8uisite legal standing to move for the suppression and return of the documents, papers and effects that "ere sei7ed from places other than their family residences/ )ur constitutional provision on searches and sei7ures "as derived almost verbati* from the (ourth 6mendment to the Cnited ,tates Constitution/ +n the many years of >udicial construction and interpretation of the said constitutional provision, our courts have invariably regarded as doctrinal the pronouncement made on the (ourth 6mendment by federal courts, especially the (ederal ,upreme Court and the (ederal Circuit Courts of 6ppeals/ 4he C/,/ doctrines and pertinent cases on standing to move for the suppression or return of documents, papers and effects "hich are the fruits of an unla"ful search and sei7ure, may be summari7ed as follo"s; a! o"nership of documents, papers and effects gives Estanding;E b! o"nership and=or control or possession 5 actual or constructive 5 of premises searched gives EstandingE; and c! the Eaggrieved personE doctrine "here the search "arrant and the s"orn application for search "arrant are EprimarilyE directed solely and e.clusively against the Eaggrieved person,E gives Estanding/E 6n e.amination of the search "arrants in this case "ill readily sho" that, e.cepting three, all "ere directed against the petitioners personally/ +n some of them, the petitioners "ere named personally, follo"ed by the designation, Ethe 1resident and=or @eneral -anagerE of the particular corporation/ 4he three "arrants e.cepted named three corporate defendants/ But the Eoffice=house="arehouse=premisesE mentioned in the said three "arrants "ere also the same Eoffice=house="arehouse=premisesE declared to be o"ned by or under the control of the petitioners in all the other search "arrants directed against the petitioners and=or Ethe 1resident and=or @eneral -anagerE of the particular corporation/ see pages 9-<? of 1etitioners' 'eply of 6pril <, 192<!/ 4he searches and sei7ures "ere to be made, and "ere actually made, in the Eoffice=house="arehouse=premisesE o"ned by or under the control of the petitioners/ 4wnership of *atters seize gives Estan ing.E )"nership of the properties sei7ed alone entitles the petitioners to bring a motion to return and suppress, and gives them standing as persons aggrieved by an unla"ful search and sei7ure regardless of their location at the time of sei7ure/ Aones vs. -nite %tates, :2< C/,/ <9B, <21 1920! narcotics stored in the apartment of a friend of the defendant!; Cenzel vs. -nite %tates , <92 (/ <d/ 290, 29<-9: 9th Cir/ 1921!, personal and corporate papers of corporation of "hich the defendant "as president!, -nite %tates vs. Aeffers , :?< C/,/ ?A 1991! narcotics sei7ed in an apartment not belonging to the defendant!; 8ielow vs. -nite %tates, A (/ <d ?9<, ?9: 9th Cir/ 19<9! books sei7ed from the defendant's sister but belonging to the defendant!; Cf/ 3illano vs. -nite %tates , :10 (/ <d 2A0, 2A: 10th Cir/ 192<! papers sei7ed in desk neither o"ned by nor in e.clusive possession of the defendant!/ +n a very recent case decided by the C/,/ ,upreme Court on *ecember 1<, 1922!, it "as held that under the constitutional provision against unla"ful searches and sei7ures, a person places himself or his property "ithin a constitutionally protected area, be it his home or his office, his hotel room or his automobile# $here the argument falls is in its misapprehension of the fundamental nature and scope of (ourth 6mendment protection/ $hat the (ourth 6mendment protects is the security a man relies upon "hen heplaces hi*self or his propert! within a constitutionall! protecte area" be it his ho*e or his office" his hotel roo* or his auto*obile/ 4here he is protected from un"arranted governmental intrusion/ 6nd "hen he puts

some thing in his filing cabinet, in his desk dra"er, or in his pocket, he has the right to kno" it "ill be secure from an unreasonable search or an unreasonable sei7ure/ ,o it "as that the (ourth 6mendment could not tolerate the "arrantless search of the hotel room in Aeffers, the purloining of the petitioner's private papers in Goule , or the surreptitious electronic surveilance in %ilver*an/ Countless other cases "hich have come to this Court over the years have involved a myriad of differing factual conte.ts in "hich the protections of the (ourth 6mendment have been appropriately invoked/ 3o doubt, the future "ill bring countless others/ By nothing "e say here do "e either foresee or foreclose factual situations to "hich the (ourth 6mendment may be applicable/ Coffa vs. -.%/, AB ,/ Ct/ ?0A *ecember 1<, 1922!/ ,ee also -.%. vs. Aeffers, :?< C/,/ ?A, B< ,/ Ct/ 9: 3ovember 1:, 1991!/ &mphasis supplied!/ 2ontrol of pre*ises searche gives Dstan ing.D +ndependent of o"nership or other personal interest in the records and documents sei7ed, the petitioners have standing to move for return and suppression by virtue of their proprietary or leasehold interest in many of the premises searched/ 4hese proprietary and leasehold interests have been sufficiently set forth in their motion for reconsideration and need not be recounted here, e.cept to emphasi7e that the petitioners paid rent, directly or indirectly, for practically all the premises searched 'oom 91, A? Carmen 6pts; 'oom :0?, 6rmy P 3avy Club; 1remises <00A, *e"ey Boulevard; 1?:2 Colorado ,treet!; maintained personal offices "ithin the corporate offices +B-C, C,4C!; had made improvements or furnished such offices; or had paid for the filing cabinets in "hich the papers "ere stored 'oom <0?, 6rmy P 3avy Club!; and individually, or through their respective spouses, o"ned the controlling stock of the corporations involved/ 4he petitioners' proprietary interest in most, if not all, of the premises searched therefore independently gives them standing to move for the return and suppression of the books, papers and affects sei7ed therefrom/ +n Aones vs. -nite %tates, supra, the C/,/ ,upreme Court delineated the nature and e.tent of the interest in the searched premises necessary to maintain a motion to suppress/ 6fter revie"ing "hat it considered to be the unduly technical standard of the then prevailing circuit court decisions, the ,upreme Court said :2< C/,/ <22!# $e do not lightly depart from this course of decisions by the lo"er courts/ $e are persuaded, ho"ever, that it is unnecessarily and ill-advised to import into the la" surrounding the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and sei7ures subtle distinctions, developed and refined by the common la" in evolving the body of private property la" "hich, more than almost any other branch of la", has been shaped by distinctions "hose validity is largely historical/ &ven in the area from "hich they derive, due consideration has led to the discarding of those distinctions in the homeland of the common la"/ ,ee )ccupiers' 0iability 6ct, 199B, 9 and 2 &li7/ <, c/ :1, carrying out 0a" 'eform Committee, 4hird 'eport, Cmd/ 9:09/ *istinctions such as those bet"een ElesseeE, Elicensee,E Einvitee,E Eguest,E often only of gossamer strength, ought not be determinative in fashioning procedures ultimately referable to constitutional safeguards/ ,ee also 2hap*an vs. -nite %tates , :9? C/,/ 210, 212-1B 1921!/ +t has never been held that a person "ith re8uisite interest in the premises searched must o"n the property sei7ed in order to have standing in a motion to return and suppress/ +n #lioto vs. -nite %tates , <12 (/ ,upp/ ?A 192:!, a Bookkeeper for several corporations from "hose apartment the corporate records "ere sei7ed successfully moved for their return/ +n -nite %tates vs. #ntonelli" 6irewor+s 2o /, 9: (/ ,upp/ AB0, AB: $ */ 3/ D/ 19?:!, the corporation's president successfully moved for the return and suppression is to him of both personal and corporate documents sei7ed from his home during the course of an illegal search# 4he lawful possession by 6ntonelli of documents and property, E either his own or the corporation?s "as entitled to protection against unreasonable search and sei7ure/ Cnder the circumstances in the case at bar, the search and sei7ure "ere unreasonable and unla"ful/ 4he motion for the return of sei7ed article and the suppression of the evidence so obtained should be granted/ &mphasis supplied!/ 4ime "as "hen only a person "ho had property in interest in either the place searched or the articles sei7e had the necessary standing to invoke the protection of the e.clusionary rule/ But in :ac$onal vs. -nite %tates , ::9 C/,/ ?21 19?A!, Justice 'obert Jackson >oined by Justice (eli. (rankfurter, advanced the vie" that Eeven a guest may e.pect the shelter of the rooftree he is under against criminal intrusion/E 4his vie" finally became the official vie" of the C/,/ ,upreme Court and "as articulated in -nite %tates vs. Aeffers, ?:< C/, ?A 1991!/ 3ine years later, in 1920, in Aones vs. -nite %tates, :2< C/,/ <9B, <2B, the C/,/ ,upreme Court "ent a step further/ Jones "as a mere guest in the apartment unla"fully searched but the Court nonetheless declared that the e.clusionary rule protected him as "ell/ 4he concept of Eperson aggrieved by an unla"ful search and sei7ureE "as enlarged to include Eanyone legitimately on premise "here the search occurs/E ,hortly after the C/,/ ,upreme Court's Aones decision the C/,/ Court of 6ppeals for the (ifth Circuit held that the defendant organi7er, sole stockholder and president of a corporation had standing in a mail fraud prosecution against him to demand the return and suppression of corporate property/ Cenzel vs. -nite %tates , <92 ( <d 290, 29< 9th Cir/ 1921!, supra/ 4he court conclude that the defendant had standing on t"o independent grounds# 6irst . he had a sufficient interest in the property sei7ed, and secon . he had an ade8uate interest in the premises searched >ust like in the case at bar!/ 6 postal inspector had unla"fully searched the corporation' premises and had sei7ed most of the corporation's book and records/ 0ooking to Aones, the court observed#

Aones clearly tells us, therefore, "hat is not re8uired 8ualify one as a Eperson aggrieved by an unla"ful search and sei7ure/E +t tells us that appellant should not have been precluded from ob>ecting to the 1ostal +nspector's search and sei7ure of the corporation's books and records merely because the appellant did not sho" o"nership or possession of the books and records or a substantial possessory interest in the invade premises / / / Cenzel vs. -nite %tates, <92 (/ <d at 291!/ / Cenzel "as soon follo"ed by 3illano vs. -nite %tates , :10 (/ <d 2A0, 2A:, 10th Cir/ 192<!/ +n 3illano, police officers sei7ed t"o notebooks from a desk in the defendant's place of employment; the defendant did not claim o"nership of either; he asserted that several employees including himself! used the notebooks/ 4he Court held that the employee had a protected interest and that there also "as an invasion of privacy/ Both Cenzel and 3illanoconsidered also the fact that the search and sei7ure "ere Edirected atE the moving defendant/ Cenzel vs. -nite %tates, <92 (/ <d at 2A<; 3illano vs. -nite %tates , :10 (/ <d at 2A:/ +n a case in "hich an attorney closed his la" office, placed his files in storage and "ent to 1uerto 'ico, the Court of 6ppeals for the &ighth Circuit recogni7ed his standing to move to 8uash as unreasonable search and sei7ure under the (ourth 6mendment of the C/,/ Constitution a grand >ury subpoena uces tecu* directed to the custodian of his files/ 4he @overnment contended that the petitioner had no standing because the books and papers "ere physically in the possession of the custodian, and because the subpoena "as directed against the custodian/ 4he court re>ected the contention, holding that ,ch"immer legally had such possession, control and unrelin8uished personal rights in the books and papers as not to enable the 8uestion of unreasonable search and sei7ure to be escaped through the mere procedural device of compelling a third-party naked possessor to produce and deliver them/ %chwi**er vs. -nite %tates, <:< (/ <d A99, A21 Ath Cir/ 1992!/ #ggrieve person octrine where the search warrant s pri*aril! irecte against sai person gives Estan ing.E 4he latest Cnited ,tates decision s8uarely in point is -nite %tates vs. 1irrell , <?< (/ ,upp/ 191 1929, C/,/*/C/ ,/*/3/D/!/ 4he defendant had stored "ith an attorney certain files and papers, "hich attorney, by the name of *unn, "as not, at the time of the sei7ing of the records, Birrell's attorney/ N *unn, in turn, had stored most of the records at his home in the country and on a farm "hich, according to *unn's affidavit, "as under his *unn's! Econtrol and management/E 4he papers turned out to be private, personal and business papers together "ith corporate books and records of certain unnamed corporations in "hich Birrell did not even claim o"nership/ 6ll of these type records "ere sei7ed in the case at bar!/ 3evertheless, the search in Birrell "as held invalid by the court "hich held that even though Birrell did not o"n the premises "here the records "ere stored, he had EstandingE to move for the return of all the papers and properties sei7ed/ 4he court, relying on Aones vs. -.%/, supra; -.%. vs. #ntonelli 6irewor+s 2o /, 9: (/ ,upp/ AB0, 6ff'd 199 (/ <d 2:1# Cenzel vs. -.%." supraE and %chwi**er vs. -.%." supra, pointed out that +t is over"helmingly established that the searches here in 8uestion "ere directed solely and e.clusively against Birrell/ 4he only person suggested in the papers as having violated the la" "as Birrell/ 4he first search "arrant described the records as having been used Ein committing a violation of 4itle 1A, Cnited ,tates Code, ,ection 1:?1, by the use of the mails by one 0o"ell -/ Birrell, / / /E 4he second search "arrant "as captioned# E-nite %tates of #*erica vs. 9owell :. 1irrell / p/ 19A! 1ossession actual or constructive!, no less than o"nership, gives standing to move to suppress/ ,uch "as the rule even before Jones/ p/ 199! +f, as thus indicated Birrell had at least constructive possession of the records stored "ith *unn, it matters not "hether he had any interest in the premises searched/ ,ee also Aeffers v. -nite %tates , AA C/,/ 6ppl/ */C/ 9A, 1AB (/ <d ?9A 1990!, affirmed ?:< C/,/ ?A, B< ,/ Ct/ 9:, 92 0/ &d/ ?99 1991!/ 4he ruling in the 1irrell case "as reaffirmed on motion for reargument; the Cnited ,tates did not appeal from this decision/ 4he factual situation in 1irrell is strikingly similar to the case of the present petitioners; as in 1irrell, many personal and corporate papers "ere sei7ed from premises not petitioners' family residences; as in 1irrell, the searches "ere E1'+-6'+0D *+'&C4&* ,)0&4D 63* &QC0C,+F&0DE against the petitioners/ ,till both types of documents "ere suppressed in 1irrell because of the illegal search/ +n the case at bar, the petitioners connection "ith the premises raided is much closer than in 1irrell/ 4hus, the petitioners have full standing to move for the 8uashing of all the "arrants regardless "hether these "ere directed against residences in the narro" sense of the "ord, as long as the documents "ere personal papers of the petitioners or to the e.tent that they "ere corporate papers! "ere held by them in a personal capacity or under their personal control/ 1rescinding a from the foregoing, this Court, at all events, should order the return to the petitioners all personaland private papers and effects sei7ed, no matter "here these "ere sei7ed, "hether from their residences or corporate offices or any other place or places/ 4he uncontra icte s"orn statements of the petitioners in their, various pleadings submitted to this Court indisputably sho" that amongst the things sei7ed from the corporate offices and other places "ere personal and private papers and effects belonging to the petitioners/

10

+f there should be any categori7ation of the documents, papers and things "hich "here the ob>ects of the unla"ful searches and sei7ures, + submit that the grouping should be# a! personal or private papers of the petitioners "ere they "ere unla"fully sei7ed, be it their family residences offices, "arehouses and=or premises o"ned and=or possessed actually or constructively! by them as sho"n in all the search and in the s"orn applications filed in securing the void search "arrants and b! purely corporate papers belonging to corporations/ Cnder such categori7ation or grouping, the determination of "hich unla"fully sei7ed papers, documents and things are personalFprivate of the petitioners or purel! corporate papers "ill have to be left to the lo"er courts "hich issued the void search "arrants in ultimately effecting the suppression and=or return of the said documents/ 6nd as une8uivocally indicated by the authorities above cited, the petitioners like"ise have clear legal standing to move for the suppression of purel! corporate papers as E1resident and=or @eneral -anagerE of the corporations involved as specifically mentioned in the void search "arrants/ (inally, + must articulate my persuasion that although the cases cited in my dis8uisition "ere criminal prosecutions, the great clauses of the constitutional proscription on illegal searches and sei7ures do not "ithhold the mantle of their protection from cases not criminal in origin or nature/ Burgos vs. .)ie1 o1 &'a11 (G.R. No. L-62261)2 "&./L!N$ J.: 6ssailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus "ith preliminary mandatory and prohibitory in>unction is the validity of t"o L<M search "arrants issued on *ecember B, 19A< by respondent Judge &rnani Cru7-1ano, &.ecutive Judge of the then Court of (irst +nstance of 'i7al LGue7on CityM, under "hich the premises kno"n as 3o/ 19, 'oad :, 1ro>ect 2, Gue7on City, and BA? Cnits C P *, '-, Building, Gue7on 6venue, Gue7on City, business addresses of the E-etropolitan -ailE and E$e (orumE ne"spapers, respectively, "ere searched, and office and printing machines, e8uipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said ne"spapers, as "ell as numerous papers, documents, books and other "ritten literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr/ publisher-editor of the E$e (orumE ne"spaper, "ere sei7ed/ 1etitioners further pray that a "rit of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory in>unction be issued for the return of the sei7ed articles, and that respondents, Eparticularly the Chief 0egal )fficer, 1residential ,ecurity Command, the Judge 6dvocate @eneral, 6(1, the City (iscal of Gue7on City, their representatives, assistants, subalterns, subordinates, substitute or successorsE be en>oined from using the articles thus sei7ed as evidence against petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr/ and the other accused in Criminal Case 3o/ G- 0<<BA< of the 'egional 4rial Court of Gue7on City, entitled 8eople v. Aose 1urgos" Ar/ et al/ 1 +n our 'esolution dated June <1, 19A:, respondents "ere re8uired to ans"er the petition/ 4he plea for preliminary mandatory and prohibitory in>unction "as set for hearing on June <A, 19A:, later reset to July B, 19A:, on motion of the ,olicitor @eneral in behalf of respondents/ 6t the hearing on July B, 19A:, the ,olicitor @eneral, "hile opposing petitioners' prayer for a "rit of preliminary mandatory in>unction, manifested that respondents E"ill not use the aforementioned articles as evidence in the aforementioned case until final resolution of the legality of the sei7ure of the aforementioned articles/ ///E 2 $ith this manifestation, the prayer for preliminary prohibitory in>unction "as rendered moot and academic/ 'espondents "ould have this Court dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners had come to this Court "ithout having previously sought the 8uashal of the search "arrants before respondent >udge/ +ndeed, petitioners, before impugning the validity of the "arrants before this Court, should have filed a motion to 8uash said "arrants in the court that issued them/ - But this procedural fla" not"ithstanding, "e take cogni7ance of this petition in vie" of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised not to mention the public interest generated by the search of the E$e (orumE offices, "hich "as televised in Channel B and "idely publici7ed in all metropolitan dailies/ 4he e.istence of this special circumstance >ustifies this Court to e.ercise its inherent po"er to suspend its rules/ +n the "ords of the revered -r/ Justice 6bad ,antos in the case of 2. 3 a. e 4r oveza v. Ra!*un o , 2 Eit is al"ays in the po"er of the court L,upreme CourtM to suspend its rules or to e.cept a particular case from its operation, "henever the purposes of >ustice re8uire it///E/ 'espondents like"ise urge dismissal of the petition on ground of laches/ Considerable stress is laid on the fact that "hile said search "arrants "ere issued on *ecember B, 19A<, the instant petition impugning the same "as filed only on June 12, 19A: or after the lapse of a period of more than si. L2M months/

0aches is failure or negligence for an unreasonable and une.plained length of time to do that "hich, by e.ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier/ +t is negligence or omission to assert a right "ithin a reasonable time, "arranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it/ 5 1etitioners, in their Consolidated 'eply, e.plained the reason for the delay in the filing of the petition thus# 'espondents should not find fault, as they no" do Lp/ 1, 6ns"er, p/ :, -anifestationM "ith the fact that the 1etition "as filed on June 12, 19A:, more than half a year after the petitioners' premises had been raided/ 4he climate of the times has given petitioners no other choice/ +f they had "aited this long to bring their case to court, it "as because they tried at first to e.haust other remedies/ 4he events of the past eleven fill years had taught them that everything in this country, from release of public funds to release of detained persons from custody, has become a matter of e.ecutive benevolence or largesse %ence, as soon as they could, petitioners, upon suggestion of persons close to the 1resident, like (iscal (laminiano, sent a letter to 1resident -arcos, through counsel 6ntonio Coronet asking the return at least of the printing e8uipment and vehicles/ 6nd after such a letter had been sent, through Col/ Balbino F/ *iego, Chief +ntelligence and 0egal )fficer of the 1residential ,ecurity Command, they "ere further encouraged to hope that the latter "ould yield the desired results/ 6fter "aiting in vain for five L9M months, petitioners finally decided to come to Court/ Lpp/ 1<:-1<?, 'olloM 6lthough the reason given by petitioners may not be flattering to our >udicial system, $e find no ground to punish or chastise them for an error in >udgment/ )n the contrary, the e.tra>udicial efforts e.erted by petitioners 8uite evidently negate the presumption that they had abandoned their right to the possession of the sei7ed property, thereby refuting the charge of laches against them/ 'espondents also submit the theory that since petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr/ had used and marked as evidence some of the sei7ed documents in Criminal Case 3o/ G- 0<<AB<, he is no" estopped from challenging the validity of the search "arrants/ $e do not follo" the logic of respondents/ 4hese documents la"fully belong to petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr/ and he can do "hatever he pleases "ith them, "ithin legal bounds/ 4he fact that he has used them as evidence does not and cannot in any "ay affect the validity or invalidity of the search "arrants assailed in this petition/ ,everal and diverse reasons have been advanced by petitioners to nullify the search "arrants in 8uestion/ 1/ 1etitioners fault respondent >udge for his alleged failure to conduct an e.amination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his "itnesses, as mandated by the above-8uoted constitutional provision as "en as ,ec/ ?, 'ule 1<2 of the 'ules of Court / 6 4his ob>ection, ho"ever, may properly be considered moot and academic, as petitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on 6ugust 9, 19A:, that an e.amination had indeed been conducted by respondent >udge of Col/ 6badilla and his "itnesses/ </ ,earch $arrants 3o/ <0-A<LaM and 3o/ <0- A<LbM "ere used to search t"o distinct places# 3o/ 19, 'oad :, 1ro>ect 2, Gue7on City and BA? Cnits C P *, '-, Building, Gue7on 6venue, Gue7on City, respectively/ )b>ection is interposed to the e.ecution of ,earch $arrant 3o/ <0-A<LbM at the latter address on the ground that the t"o search "arrants pinpointed only one place "here petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr/ "as allegedly keeping and concealing the articles listed therein, i/e/, 3o/ 19, 'oad :, 1ro>ect 2, Gue7on City/ 4his assertion is based on that portion of ,earch $arrant 3o/ <0- A<LbM "hich states# $hich have been used, and are being used as instruments and means of committing the crime of subversion penali7ed under 1/*/ AA9 as amended and he is keeping and concealing the same at 19 'oad :, 1ro>ect 2, Gue7on City/ 4he defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error/ 1recisely, t"o search "arrants "ere applied for and issued because the purpose and intent "ere to search t"o distinct premises/ +t "ould be 8uite absurd and illogical for respondent >udge to have issued t"o "arrants intended for one and the same place/ Besides, the addresses of the places sought to be searched "ere specifically set forth in the application, and since it "as Col/ 6badilla himself "ho headed the team "hich e.ecuted the search "arrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error is more apparent than real/ 4he fact is that the place for "hich ,earch $arrant 3o/ <0- A<LbM "as applied for "as B<A Cnits C P *, '-, Building, Gue7on 6venue, Gue7on City, "hich address appeared in the opening paragraph of the said "arrant/ 7 )bviously this is the same place that respondent >udge had in mind "hen he issued $arrant 3o/ <0-A< LbM/ +n the determination of "hether a search "arrant describes the premises to be searched "ith sufficient particularity, it has been held Ethat the e.ecuting officer's prior kno"ledge as to the place intended in the "arrant is relevant/ 4his "ould seem to be especially true "here the e.ecuting officer is the affiant on "hose affidavit the "arrant had issued, and "hen he kno"s that the >udge "ho issued the "arrant intended the building described in the affidavit, 6nd it has

C'+-&, 6@6+3,4 (C3*6-&3460 06$, )( 4%& ,464& ,&6'C% $6''634, -60+C+)C,0D )B46+3&*!

11

also been said that the e.ecuting officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an ambiguity in the "arrant as to the place to be searched/E 8 :/ 6nother ground relied upon to annul the search "arrants is the fact that although the "arrants "ere directed against Jose Burgos, Jr/ alone, articles b belonging to his co-petitioners Jose Burgos, ,r/, Bayani ,oriano and the J/ Burgos -edia ,ervices, +nc/ "ere sei7ed/ ,ection <, 'ule 1<2 of the 'ules of Court, enumerates the personal properties that may be sei7ed under a search "arrant, to "it# ,ec/ </ 1ersonal 1roperty to be sei7ed/ 5 6 search "arrant may be issued for the search and sei7ure of the follo"ing personal property# LaM 1roperty sub>ect of the offense; LbM 1roperty stolen or embe77led and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; and LcM 1roperty used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense/ 4he above rule does not re8uire that the property to be sei7ed should be o"ned by the person against "hom the search "arrant is directed/ +t may or may not be o"ned by him/ +n fact, under subsection LbM of the above-8uoted ,ection <, one of the properties that may be sei7ed is stolen property/ 3ecessarily, stolen property must be o"ned by one other than the person in "hose possession it may be at the time of the search and sei7ure/ )"nership, therefore, is of no conse8uence, and it is sufficient that the person against "hom the "arrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be sei7ed, as petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr/ "as alleged to have in relation to the articles and property sei7ed under the "arrants/ ?/ 3either is there merit in petitioners' assertion that real properties "ere sei7ed under the disputed "arrants/ Cnder 6rticle ?19L9M of the Civil Code of the 1hilippines, Emachinery, receptables, instruments or implements intended by the o"ner of the tenement for an industry or "orks "hich may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and "hich tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or "orksE are considered immovable property/ +n $avao %aw*ill 2o. v. 2astillo 9 "here this legal provision "as invoked, this Court ruled that machinery "hich is movable by nature becomes immobili7ed "hen placed by the o"ner of the tenement, property or plant, but not so "hen placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the o"ner/ +n the case at bar, petitioners do not claim to be the o"ners of the land and=or building on "hich the machineries "ere placed/ 4his being the case, the machineries in 8uestion, "hile in fact bolted to the ground remain movable property susceptible to sei7ure under a search "arrant/ 9/ 4he 8uestioned search "arrants "ere issued by respondent >udge upon application of Col/ 'olando 3/ 6badilla +ntelligence )fficer of the 1/C/ -etrocom/ 1, 4he application "as accompanied by the Joint 6ffidavit of 6le>andro -/ @utierre7 and 1edro C/ 4ango, 11 members of the -etrocom +ntelligence and ,ecurity @roup under Col/ 6badilla "hich conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the search "arrants on *ecember B, 19A</ +t is contended by petitioners, ho"ever, that the abovementioned documents could not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause upon "hich a "arrant may validly issue in accordance "ith ,ection :, 6rticle +F of the 19B: Constitution "hich provides# ,&C/ :/ /// and no search "arrant or "arrant of arrest shall issue e.cept upon probable cause to be determined by the >udge, or such other responsible officer as may be authori7ed by la", after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the "itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei7ed/ $e find petitioners' thesis impressed "ith merit/ 1robable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances "hich "ould lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the ob>ects sought in connection "ith the offense are in the place sought to be searched/ 6nd "hen the search "arrant applied for is directed against a ne"spaper publisher or editor in connection "ith the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application and=or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating "ith particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish/ -ere generali7ation "ill not suffice/ 4hus, the broad statement in Col/ 6badilla's application that petitioner Eis in possession or has in his control printing e8uipment and other paraphernalia, ne"s publications and other documents "hich "ere used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under 1residential *ecree AA9, as amended ///E 12 is a mere conclusion of la" and does not satisfy the re8uirements of probable cause/ Bereft of such particulars as "ould >ustify a finding of the e.istence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search "arrant and it "as a grave error for respondent >udge to have done so/ &8ually insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is the statement contained in the >oint affidavit of 6le>andro -/ @utierre7 and 1edro C/ 4ango, Ethat the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly sho"s that the

premises above- mentioned and the articles and things above-described "ere used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in conspiracy "ith, and to promote the ob>ective of, illegal organi7ations such as the 0ight-a-(ire -ovement, -ovement for (ree 1hilippines, and 6pril 2 -ovement/E 1+n mandating that Eno "arrant shall issue e.cept upon probable cause to be determined by the >udge, /// after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the "itnesses he may produce; 12 the Constitution re8uires no less than personal kno"ledge by the complainant or his "itnesses of the facts upon "hich the issuance of a search "arrant may be >ustified/ +n #lvarez v. 2ourt of 6irst Instance" 15 this Court ruled that Ethe oath re8uired must refer to the truth of the facts "ithin the personal kno"ledge of the petitioner or his "itnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the "arrant, of the e.istence of probable cause/E 6s couched, the 8uoted averment in said >oint affidavit filed before respondent >udge hardly meets the test of sufficiency established by this Court in 6lvare7 case/ 6nother factor "hich makes the search "arrants under consideration constitutionally ob>ectionable is that they are in the nature of general "arrants/ 4he search "arrants describe the articles sought to be sei7ed in this "ise# 1M 6ll printing e8uipment, paraphernalia, paper, ink, photo e8uipment, type"riters, cabinets, tables, communications=recording e8uipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and the like used and=or connected in the printing of the E$& ()'C-E ne"spaper and any and all documents communication, letters and facsimile of prints related to the E$& ()'C-E ne"spaper/ <M ,ubversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, and other publication to promote the ob>ectives and piurposes of the subversive organi7ation kno"n as -ovement for (ree 1hilippines, 0ight-a-(ire -ovement and 6pril 2 -ovement; and, :M -otor vehicles used in the distribution=circulation of the E$& ()'C-E and other subversive materials and propaganda, more particularly, 1M 4oyota-Corolla, colored yello" "ith 1late 3o/ 3I6 A9<; <M *64,C3 pick-up colored "hite "ith 1late 3o/ 3IF 929 :M 6 delivery truck "ith 1late 3o/ 3B, 9<?; ?M 4)D)46-46-6'6$, colored "hite "ith 1late 3o/ 1B1 229; and, 9M 4)D)46 %i-0u., pick-up truck "ith 1late 3o/ 3@F ?<B "ith marking EBagong ,ilang/E +n %tanfor v. %tate of @exas 16 the search "arrant "hich authori7ed the search for Ebooks, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other "ritten instruments concerning the Communist 1arty in 4e.as,E "as declared void by the C/,/ ,upreme Court for being too general/ +n like manner, directions to Esei7e any evidence in connection"ith the violation of ,*C 1:-:B0: or other"iseE have been held too general, and that portion of a search "arrant "hich authori7ed the sei7ure of any Eparaphernalia "hich could be used to violate ,ec/ 9?-19B of the Connecticut @eneral ,tatutes Lthe statute dealing "ith the crime of conspiracyME "as held to be a general "arrant, and therefore invalid/ 17 4he description of the articles sought to be sei7ed under the search "arrants in 8uestion cannot be characteri7ed differently/ +n the ,tanford case, the C/,/ ,upreme Courts calls to mind a notable chapter in &nglish history# the era of disaccord bet"een the 4udor @overnment and the &nglish 1ress, "hen E)fficers of the Cro"n "ere given roving commissions to search "here they pleased in order to suppress and destroy the literature of dissent both Catholic and 1uritan 'eference herein to such historical episode "ould not be relevant for it is not the policy of our government to suppress any ne"spaper or publication that speaks "ith Ethe voice of non-conformityE but poses no clear and imminent danger to state security/ 6s heretofore stated, the premises searched "ere the business and printing offices of the E-etropolitan -ailE and the E$e (orum ne"spapers/ 6s a conse8uence of the search and sei7ure, these premises "ere padlocked and sealed, "ith the further result that the printing and publication of said ne"spapers "ere discontinued/ ,uch closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental la", 18 and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to e.press themselves in print/ 4his state of being is patently anathematic to a democratic frame"ork "here a free, alert and even militant press is essential for the political enlightenment and gro"th of the citi7enry/ 'espondents "ould >ustify the continued sealing of the printing machines on the ground that they have been se8uestered under ,ection A of 1residential *ecree 3o/ AA9, as amended, "hich authori7es Ethe se8uestration of the property of any person, natural or artificial, engaged in subversive activities against the government and its duly constituted authorities /// in accordance "ith implementing rules and regulations as may be issued by the ,ecretary of 3ational *efense/E +t is doubtful ho"ever, if se8uestration could validly be effected in vie" of the absence of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the -inister of 3ational *efense/ Besides, in the *ecember 10, 19A< issue of the $ail! Express, it "as reported that no less than 1resident -arcos himself denied the re8uest of the military authorities to se8uester the property sei7ed from petitioners on *ecember B, 19A</ 4hus#

12

4he 1resident denied a re8uest flied by government prosecutors for se8uestration of the $& ()'C- ne"spaper and its printing presses, according to +nformation -inister @regorio ,/ Cendana/ )n the basis of court orders, government agents "ent to the $e (orum offices in Gue7on City and took a detailed inventory of the e8uipment and all materials in the premises/ CendaHa said that because of the denial the ne"spaper and its e8uipment remain at the disposal of the o"ners, sub>ect to the discretion of the court/ 19 4hat the property sei7ed on *ecember B, 19A< had not been se8uestered is further confirmed by the reply of then (oreign -inister Carlos 1/ 'omulo to the letter dated (ebruary 10, 19A: of C/,/ Congressman 4ony 1/ %all addressed to 1resident -arcos, e.pressing alarm over the E$& ()'C- E case/ 2, +n this reply dated (ebruary 11, 19A:, -inister 'omulo stated# </ Contrary to reports, 1resident -arcos turned do"n the recommendation of our authorities to close the paper's printing facilities and confiscate the e8uipment and materials it uses/ 21 +3 F+&$ )( 4%& ()'&@)+3@, ,earch $arrants 3os/ <0-A<LaM and <0-A<LbM issued by respondent >udge on *ecember B, 19A< are hereby declared null and void and are accordingly set aside/ 4he prayer for a "rit of mandatory in>unction for the return of the sei7ed articles is hereby granted and all articles sei7ed thereunder are hereby ordered released to petitioners/ 3o costs/ ,) )'*&'&*/

ob>ect of veneration by the faithful/E 4he mere act of causing the passage through the churchyard belonging to the Church, of the funeral of one "ho in life belonged to the Church of Christ, neither offends nor ridicules the religious feelings of those "ho belong to the 'oman Catholic Church/ ,ustaining the foregoing motion, the court by an order of 6ugust :1, 19:B, dismissed the case, reserving, ho"ever, to the fiscal the right to file another information for the crime found to have been committed by the accused/ (rom this order, the plaintiff appealed, "hich appeal "as denied but thereafter given due course by the court by virtue of an order of this court/ 4he appealed order is based upon the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal/ 4his officer 8uestions the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, but omits an essential part thereof, to "it, that the churchyard belongs to the church, and is devoted to the religious services of said church, and it is through this churchyard that the accused, over the ob>ection of the parish priest and through force and intimidation, caused to pass the funeral of one under the rites of the religious sect kno"n as the Church of Christ/ %ad the fiscal not omitted this essential part, he "ould not have come to the conclusion that the acts complained of do not constitute the crime defined and penali7ed by article 1:: of the 'evised 1enal Code/ -oreover, the fiscal, in his aforesaid motion, denies that the unla"ful act committed by the accused had offended the religious feelings of the Catholics of the municipality in "hich the act complained of took place/ $e believe that such ground of the motion is indefensible/ 6s the fiscal "as discussing the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, he cannot deny any of them, but must admit them, although hypothetically, as they are alleged/ 4he motion raises a 8uestion of la", not one of fact/ +n the second place, "hether or of the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics, is a 8uestion of fact "hich must be >udged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the feelings of those "ho profess a certain religion, "hile not other"ise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith/ $e, therefore, take the vie" that the facts alleged in the complaint constitute the offense defined and penali7ed in article 1:: of the 'evised 1enal Code, and should the fiscal file an information alleging the said facts and a trial be thereafter held at "hich the said facts should be conclusively established, the court may find the accused guilty of the offense complained of, or that of coercion, or that of trespass under article <A1 of the 'evised 1enal Code, as may be proper, pursuant to section <9 of @eneral )rders, 3o/ 9A/ 4he appealed order is reversed and the fiscal is ordered to comply "ith his duty under the la", "ithout pronouncement as to the costs/ ,o ordered/ #vance=a" 2.A." 3illaGReal" an $iaz" AA." concur.

P"/PL" vs. B0"& (G.R. No. L-26,,,$ 3a4 25$ 19-9) ./N."P.!/N$ J.: 4his appeal "as given due course by the Court of (irst +nstance of 0aguna by virtue of a "rit of *an a*us issued by this court in @/'/ 3o/ ?9BA0/ 4he facts are the follo"ing# +n the >ustice of the peace court of the municipality of 0umban, 1rovince of 0aguna, a complaint "as filed of the follo"ing tenor# 4he undersigned 1arish 1riest Baes of the 'oman Catholic Church in the parish and municipality of 0umban, 1rovince of 0aguna, upon being duly s"orn, charges &nri8ue Fillaroca, 6le>andro 0acbay and Bernardo del 'osario "ith an offense against religion committed as follo"s# 4hat on 6pril 1?, 19:B, at about 9 o'clock a/m/, in this municipality of 0umban, 1rovince of 0aguna, 1hilippines, and "ithin the >urisdiction of this court, the aforesaid accused, "hile holding the funeral of one "ho in life "as called 6ntonio -acabigtas, in accordance "ith the rites of religious sect kno"n as the EChurch of ChristE, "illfully, unla"fully, and criminally caused the funeral to pass, as it in fact passed, through the chruchyard fronting the 'oman Catholic Church, "hich churchyard belongs to the said Church, "hich churchyard belongs to the said Church and is devoted to the religious "orship thereof, against the opposition of the undersigned complainant "ho, through force and threats of physical violence by the accused, "as compelled to allo" the funeral to pass through the said churchyard/ 6n act committed in grave profanation of the place, in open disregard of the religious feelings of the Catholics of this municipality, and in violation of article 1:: of the 'evised 1enal Code/ ,gd/! J),& -/6/ B6&, 8arish 8riest 2o*plainant %ere follo" the affidavit and the list of "itnesses/! 4he accused pleaded not guilty and "aived the preliminary investigation/ Before the case "as remanded to the Court of (irst +nstance of 0aguna, the complainant filed a s"orn statement regarding other points so that the provincial fiscal may have full kno"ledge of the facts and of the "itnesses "ho could testify thereon/ Cpon the remand of the case to the court, the fiscal, instead of filing the corresponding information, put in the follo"ing motion for dismissal# 4he complainant is the parish priest of the 'oman Catholic Church of 0umban, 0aguna/ 4he said priest charges the accused "ith having caused, through force, intimidation and threats, the funeral of one belonging to the Church of Christ to pass through the churchyard of the Church/ 6pparently, the offense consists in that the corpse "as that of one "ho belonged to the Church of Christ/ 4he undersigned is of the opinion that the fact act imputed to the accused does not constitute the offense complained of considering the spirit of article 1:: of the 'evised 1enal Code/ 6t most they might be chargeable "ith having threatened the parish priest, or "ith having passed through a private property "ithout the consent of the o"ner/ Justice 6lbert, commenting on the article, has this to say# E6n act is said to be notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful "hen a person ridicules or makes light of anything constituting a religious dogma; "orks or scoffs at anything devoted to religious ceremonies; plays "ith or damages or destroys any

13