Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 89139 August 2, 1990

ROMEO POSADAS y ZAMORA, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Rudy G. Agravate for petitioner.

GANCAYCO, J.:

The validity of a warrantless search on the person of petitioner is put into issue in this case.

On October 16, 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both
members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task
Force, were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City. While they were within the premises of
the Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting
suspiciously.

They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but
his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance.

They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver
with Serial No. 770196 1 two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun 2 a smoke (tear gas) grenade,3 and
two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. 4 They brought the petitioner to the police station for further
investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to show the necessary license or authority to
possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so. He was then taken to the Davao
Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the officer then on
duty. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao
City wherein after a plea of not guilty and trial on the merits a decision was rendered on October 8, 1987 finding
petitioner guilty of the offense charged as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court , finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense charged.

It appearing that the accuse d was below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the commission of
the offense (Art. 68, par. 2), he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN
(10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor to TWELVE (12) Years, FIVE (5) months and
Eleven (11) days of Reclusion Temporal, and to pay the costs.

The firearm, ammunitions and smoke grenade are forfeited in favor of the government and the
Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to turn over said items to the Chief, Davao Metrodiscom,
Davao City. 5

Not satisfied therewith the petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision
was rendered on February 23, 1989 affirming in toto the appealed decision with costs against the petitioner. 6

Hence, the herein petition for review, the main thrust of which is that there being no lawful arrest or search and
seizure, the items which were confiscated from the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against
him.
The Solicitor General, in justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner, argues that
under Section 12, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an offense without a search warrant. It is further alleged that
the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the circumstances.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful — A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. (6a, 17a)

From the foregoing provision of law it is clear that an arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or
private person, among others, when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.

The Solicitor General argues that when the two policemen approached the petitioner, he was actually committing or
had just committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence of the police
officers and consequently the search and seizure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in accordance
with Section 12, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. We disagree.

At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to
flee they did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did now know
what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.

However, there are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and search" without a search warrant at military or police
checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld by this Court in Valmonte vs. de Villa, 7 as
follows:

Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect that he had been stopped and searched without
a search warrant by the military manning the checkpoints, without more, i.e., without stating the
details of the incidents which amount to a violation of his light against unlawful search and seizure, is
not sufficient to enable the Court to determine whether there was a violation of Valmonte's right
against unlawful search and seizure. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but
is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.

Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked
on the public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle or flashes a light therein, these do not
constitute unreasonable search.
 The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may be
considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing
effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public.
Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government in the
interest of public security. In this connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban
centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased killings
in cities of police and military men by NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of
unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not all
of which are reported in media, most likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions —
which all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal times. Between the
inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right
against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.

True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform in the
same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional
inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal
times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society
and a peaceful community. (Emphasis supplied).

Thus, as between a warrantless search and seizure conducted at military or police checkpoints and the search
thereat in the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in
the former, it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted
suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something
illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.

It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after
they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless, futile and
much too late.

In People vs. CFI of Rizal, 8 this Court held as follows:

. . . In the ordinary cases where warrant is indispensably necessary, the mechanics prescribed by
the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be followed and satisfied. But We need not
argue that there are exceptions. Thus in the extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to
effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed except without warrant, what
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure becomes purely a judicial question,
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the
search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched and the character of the articles procured.

The Court reproduces with approval the following disquisition of the Solicitor General:

The assailed search and seizure may still be justified as akin to a "stop and frisk" situation whose
object is either to determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo
momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information. This is illustrated in the case
of Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In this case, two men repeatedly walked past a store window
and returned to a spot where they apparently conferred with a third man. This aroused the suspicion
of a police officer. To the experienced officer, the behaviour of the men indicated that they were
sizing up the store for an armed robbery. When the police officer approached the men and asked
them for their names, they mumbled a reply. Whereupon, the officer grabbed one of them, spun him
around and frisked him. Finding a concealed weapon in one, he did the same to the other two and
found another weapon. In the prosecution for the offense of carrying a concealed weapon, the
defense of illegal search and seizure was put up. The United States Supreme Court held that "a
police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for
the purpose of investigating possible criminal behaviour even though there is no probable cause to
make an arrest." In such a situation, it is reasonable for an officer rather than simply to shrug his
shoulder and allow a crime to occur, to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his
identity or maintain thestatus quo while obtaining more information. . . .
Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has not been violated. 9

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI, defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Herminio T. Llariza counsel de-officio for defendant-appellant.

CRUZ, J.:

The accused-appellant claimed his business was selling watches but he was nonetheless arrested, tried and found guilty of illegally transporting marijuana. The
trial court, disbelieving him, held it was high time to put him away and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00. 1

Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in
the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag
and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of
suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they were
verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. 2 Later,
the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same
evening and likewise investigated. 3 Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. 4 Subsequently, the fiscal filed a
motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her
after a 'thorough investigation." 5 The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant,
who was eventually convicted .6

According to the prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the accused-
appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. 7 He was Identified by
name. 8Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the evening of June 25, 1984, and approached him as he descended
from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. 9 They detained him and inspected the bag he was
carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic
examiner, 10who testified that she conducted microscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests on them. On the
basis of this finding, the corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin.
In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of
a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants. 11 He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed.
His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to
admit he was carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as
he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. 12 He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like
and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. 13 He also argued that the marijuana he was
alleged to have been carrying was not properly Identified and could have been any of several bundles kept in the
stock room of the PC headquarters. 14

The trial court was unconvinced, noting from its own examination of the accused that he claimed to have come to
Iloilo City to sell watches but carried only two watches at the time, traveling from Jolo for that purpose and spending
P107.00 for fare, not to mention his other expenses. 15 Aminnudin testified that he kept the two watches in a secret
pocket below his belt but, strangely, they were not discovered when he was bodily searched by the arresting officers
nor were they damaged as a result of his manhandling. 16 He also said he sold one of the watches for P400.00 and
gave away the other, although the watches belonged not to him but to his cousin, 17 to a friend whose full name he
said did not even know. 18 The trial court also rejected his allegations of maltreatment, observing that he had not
sufficiently proved the injuries sustained by him. 19

There is no justification to reverse these factual findings, considering that it was the trial judge who had immediate
access to the testimony of the witnesses and had the opportunity to weigh their credibility on the stand. Nuances of
tone or voice, meaningful pauses and hesitation, flush of face and dart of eyes, which may reveal the truth or
expose the lie, are not described in the impersonal record. But the trial judge sees all of this, discovering for himself
the truant fact amidst the falsities.

The only exception we may make in this case is the trial court's conclusion that the accused-appellant was not really
beaten up because he did not complain about it later nor did he submit to a medical examination. That is hardly fair
or realistic. It is possible Aminnudin never had that opportunity as he was at that time under detention by the PC
authorities and in fact has never been set free since he was arrested in 1984 and up to the present. No bail has
been allowed for his release.

There is one point that deserves closer examination, however, and it is Aminnudin's claim that he was arrested and
searched without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found in his possession inadmissible in evidence against
him under the Bill of Rights. The decision did not even discuss this point. For his part, the Solicitor General
dismissed this after an all-too-short argument that the arrest of Aminnudin was valid because it came under Rule
113, Section 6(b) of the Rules of Court on warrantless arrests. This made the search also valid as incidental to a
lawful arrest.

It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who testified for the prosecution, that they had no
warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying. Their only justification was the tip they
had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo
by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one saying it was two days before
the arrest, 20 another two weeks 21 and a third "weeks before June 25." 22 On this matter, we may prefer the
declaration of the chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr., who testified as follows:

Q You mentioned an intelligence report, you mean with respect to the coming of Idel
Aminnudin on June 25, 1984?

A Yes, sir.

Q When did you receive this intelligence report?

A Two days before June 25, 1984 and it was supported by reliable sources.

Q Were you informed of the coming of the Wilcon 9 and the possible trafficking of
marijuana leaves on that date?
A Yes, sir, two days before June 25, 1984 when we received this information from
that particular informer, prior to June 25, 1984 we have already reports of the
particular operation which was being participated by Idel Aminnudin.

Q You said you received an intelligence report two days before June 25, 1984 with
respect to the coming of Wilcon 9?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you receive any other report aside from this intelligence report?

A Well, I have received also other reports but not pertaining to the coming of Wilcon
9. For instance, report of illegal gambling operation.

COURT:

Q Previous to that particular information which you said two days before June 25,
1984, did you also receive daily report regarding the activities of Idel Aminnudin

A Previous to June 25, 1984 we received reports on the activities of Idel Aminnudin.

Q What were those activities?

A Purely marijuana trafficking.

Q From whom did you get that information?

A It came to my hand which was written in a required sheet of information, maybe for
security reason and we cannot Identify the person.

Q But you received it from your regular informer?

A Yes, sir.

ATTY. LLARIZA:

Q Previous to June 25, 1984, you were more or less sure that Idel Aminnudin is
coming with drugs?

A Marijuana, sir.

Q And this information respecting Idel Aminnudin's coming to Iloilo with marijuana
was received by you many days before you received the intelligence report in
writing?

A Not a report of the particular coming of Aminnudin but his activities.

Q You only knew that he was coming on June 25,1984 two days before?

A Yes, sir.

Q You mean that before June 23, 1984 you did not know that minnudin was coming?

A Before June 23,1984, I, in my capacity, did not know that he was coming but on
June 23, 1984 that was the time when I received the information that he was coming.
 Regarding the reports on his activities, we have reports that he was already
consummated the act of selling and shipping marijuana stuff.

COURT:

Q And as a result of that report, you put him under surveillance?

A Yes, sir.

Q In the intelligence report, only the name of Idel Aminnudin was mentioned?

A Yes, sir.

Q Are you sure of that?

A On the 23rd he will be coming with the woman.

Q So that even before you received the official report on June 23, 1984, you had
already gathered information to the effect that Idel Aminnudin was coming to Iloilo on
June 25, 1984?

A Only on the 23rd of June.

Q You did not try to secure a search warrant for the seizure or search of the subject
mentioned in your intelligence report?

A No, more.

Q Why not?

A Because we were very very sure that our operation will yield positive result.

Q Is that your procedure that whenever it will yield positive result you do not need a
search warrant anymore?

A Search warrant is not necessary. 23

That last answer is a cavalier pronouncement, especially as it comes from a mere lieutenant of the PC. The
Supreme Court cannot countenance such a statement. This is still a government of laws and not of men.

The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.

In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination
by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was
not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless
arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the
obtention of the warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca, 24 for example. Here it was held that vessels and aircraft
are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.
The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that
they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was
coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was
certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable
cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law.
The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had
determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary."

In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it
has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what are popularly called "buy-bust"
operations of the narcotics agents. 25 Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the
accused was in the act of selling the prohibited drug.

In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown
that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the
M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of
the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the
carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger
that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers
(and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.

Now that we have succeeded in restoring democracy in our country after fourteen years of the despised
dictatorship, when any one could be picked up at will, detained without charges and punished without trial, we will
have only ourselves to blame if that kind of arbitrariness is allowed to return, to once more flaunt its disdain of the
Constitution and the individual liberties its Bill of Rights guarantees.

While this is not to say that the accused-appellant is innocent, for indeed his very own words suggest that he is
lying, that fact alone does not justify a finding that he is guilty. The constitutional presumption is that he is innocent,
and he will be so declared even if his defense is weak as long as the prosecution is not strong enough to convict
him.

Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution must fall. That
evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the
marijuana was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The
search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did
not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and
the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.

The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of
our law-enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the
susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill
of Rights for the protection of the liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The
Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-
handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.

Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name
of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes, again, said, "I think it a less evil that
some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part." It is simply not allowed in the
free society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself.

We find that with the exclusion of the illegally seized marijuana as evidence against the accused-appellant, his guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he must therefore be discharged on the presumption that he is
innocent.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED. It is so
ordered.

Narvasa, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I hold that the accused was caught in flagrante, for he was carrying marijuana leaves in his
bag at the moment of his arrest. He was not "innocently disembarking from the vessel." The unauthorized
transportation of marijuana (Indian hemp), which is a prohibited drug, is a crime. (Sec. 4, Rep. Act No. 6425). Since
he was committing a crime, his arrest could be lawfully effected without a warrant (Sec. 6a, Rule 113, Rules of
Court), and the search of his bag (which yielded the marijuana leaves) without a search warrant was also lawful
(Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court). I vote to affirm the judgment of the trial court finding him guilty of illegally
transporting marijuana.

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I hold that the accused was caught in flagrante, for he was carrying marijuana leaves in his
bag at the moment of his arrest. He was not "innocently disembarking from the vessel." The unauthorized
transportation of marijuana (Indian hemp), which is a prohibited drug, is a crime. (Sec. 4, Rep. Act No. 6425). Since
he was committing a crime, his arrest could be lawfully effected without a warrant (Sec. 6a, Rule 113, Rules of
Court), and the search of his bag (which yielded the marijuana leaves) without a search warrant was also lawful
(Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court). I vote to affirm the judgment of the trial court finding him guilty of illegally
transporting marijuana.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

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

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

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur, 11 th Judicial Region, Digos,
Davao del Sur convicting defendant- appellant Ruben Burgos y Tito of The crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms
in Furtherance of Subversion. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of accused Ruben Burgos sufficiently established beyond
reasonable doubt, of the offense charges , pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 9, in relation to
General Order No. 6, dated September 22, 1972, and General Order No. 7, dated September 23,
1972, in relation further to Presidential Decree No. 885, and considering that the firearm subject of
this case was not used in the circumstances as embraced in paragraph I thereof, applying the
provision of indeterminate sentence law, accused Ruben Burgos is hereby sentenced to suffer an
imprisonment of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum, as minimum penalty, to reclusion
perpetua, as maximum penalty, pursuant to sub-paragraph B, of Presidential Decree No. 9, as
aforementioned, with accessory penalties, as provided for by law.

As a result of this judgment, the subject firearm involved in this case (Homemade revolver, caliber
.38, Smith and Wesson, with Serial No. 8.69221) is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the
government, to be disposed of in accordance with law. Likewise, the subversive documents, leaflets
and/or propaganda seized are ordered disposed of in accordance with law.

The information charged the defendant-appellant with the crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of
subversion in an information which reads as follows:

That in the afternoon of May 13, 1982 and thereabout at Tiguman, Digos, Davao del Sur,
Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above- named accused with intent to possess
and without the necessary license, permit or authority issued by the proper government agencies,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously keep, possess, carry and have in his
possession, control and custody one (1) homemade revolver, caliber .38, make Smith and Wesson,
with Serial No. 8.69221, which firearm was issued to and used by the accused at Tiguman, Digos,
Davao del Sur, his area of operations by one Alias Commander Pol for the New People's Army
(NPA), a subversive organization organized for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines through lawless and violent means, of which the accused had
knowledge, and which firearm was used by the accused in the performance of his subversive tasks
such as the recruitment of New Members to the NPA and collection of contributions from the
members.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The evidence for the prosecution is summarized in the decision of the lower court as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

. . . Through the testimony of Pat. Pepito Bioco, and Sgt. Romeo Taroy, it appears that by virtue of
an intelligent information obtained by the Constabulary and INP units, stationed at Digos, Davao del
Sur, on May 12, 1982, one Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surre0ndered to the
authorities at about 9:00 o'clock A.M. at Digos, Davao del Sur Constabulary Headquarters, stating
that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos as member of the NPA, threatening him
with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused.

Along with his recruitment, accused was asked to contribute one (1) chopa of rice and one peso
(P1.00) per month, as his contribution to the NPA TSN, page 5, Hearing-October 14, 1982).
Immediately, upon receipt of said information, a joint team of PC-INP units, composed of fifteen (15)
members, headed by Captain Melchesideck Bargio, (PC), on the following day, May 13, 1982, was
dispatched at Tiguman; Davao del Sur, to arrest accused Ruben Burgos. The team left the
headquarter at 1:30 P.M., and arrived at Tiguman, at more or less 2:00 o'clock PM where through
the help of Pedro Burgos, brother of accused, the team was able to locate accused, who was
plowing his field. (TSN, pages 6-7, Hearing-October 14, 1982).

Right in the house of accused, the latter was caned by the team and Pat. Bioco asked accused
about his firearm, as reported by Cesar Masamlok. At first accused denied possession of said
firearm but later, upon question profounded by Sgt. Alejandro Buncalan with the wife of the accused,
the latter pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground. (TSN, page 8,
Hearing-October 14, 1982).

Pat. Bioco then verified the place pointed by accused's wife and dug the grounds, after which he
recovered the firearm, Caliber .38 revolver, marked as Exhibit "A" for the prosecution.

After the recovery of the firearm, accused likewise pointed to the team, subversive documents which
he allegedly kept in a stock pile of qqqcogon at a distance of three (3) meters apart from his house.
Then Sgt. Taroy accordingly verified beneath said cogon grass and likewise recovered documents
consisting of notebook colored maroon with spiral bound, Exhibit "B" for the prosecution; a pamphlet
consisting of eight (8) leaves, including the front and back covers entitled Ang Bayan, Pahayagan ng
Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, Pinapatnubayan ng Marxismo, Leninismo Kaisipang Mao
qqqZedong dated December 31, 1980, marked as Exhibit "C", and another pamphlet Asdang
Pamantalaang Masa sa Habagatang Mindanao, March and April 1981 issue, consisting of ten (10)
pages, marked as Exhibit "D" for the prosecution.

Accused, when confronted with the firearm Exhibit "A", after its recovery, readily admitted the same
as issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, otherwise known as a certain Alias Pedipol, allegedly team
leader of the sparrow unit of New People's Army, responsible in the liquidation of target
personalities, opposed to NPA Ideological movement, an example was the killing of the late Mayor
Llanos and Barangay Captain of Tienda Aplaya Digos, Davao del Sur. (TSN, pages 1-16, Hearing-
October 14,1982).

To prove accused's subversive activities, Cesar Masamlok, a former NPA convert was presented,
who declared that on March 7, 1972, in his former residence at Tiguman Digos, Davao del Sur,
accused Ruben Burgos, accompanied by his companions Landrino Burgos, Oscar Gomez and
Antonio Burgos, went to his house at about 5:00 o'clock P.M. and called him downstair. Thereupon,
accused told Masamlok, their purpose was to ask rice and one (1) peso from him, as his contribution
to their companions, the NPA of which he is now a member. (TSN, pages 70, 71, 72, Hearing-
January 4, 1983).

Accused and his companions told Masamlok, he has to join their group otherwise, he and his family
will be killed. He was also warned not to reveal anything with the government authorities. Because of
the threat to his life and family, Cesar Masamlok joined the group. Accused then told him, he should
attend a seminar scheduled on April 19, 1982. Along with this invitation, accused pulled gut from his
waistline a .38 caliber revolver which Masamlok really saw, being only about two (2) meters away
from accused, which make him easily Identified said firearm, as that marked as Exhibit "A" for the
prosecution. (TSN, pages 72, 73, and 74, Hearing-January 4, 1983).

On April 19, 1982, as previously invited, Masamlok, accompanied by his father, Matuguil Masamlok,
Isabel Ilan and Ayok Ides went to the house of accused and attended the seminar, Those present in
the seminar were: accused Ruben Burgos, Antonio Burgos, Oscar Gomez, Landrino Burgos, alias
Pedipol and one alias Jamper.

The first speaker was accused Ruben Burgos, who said very distinctly that he is an NPA together
with his companions, to assure the unity of the civilian. That he encouraged the group to overthrow
the government, emphasizing that those who attended the seminar were already members of the
NPA, and if they reveal to the authorities, they will be killed.
 Accused, while talking, showed to the audience pamphlets and documents, then finally shouted, the
NPA will be victorious. Masamlok likewise Identified the pamphlets as those marked as Exh. exhibits
"B", "C", and "D" for the prosecution. (TSN, pages 75, 76 and 77, Hearing-January 4, 1983)

Other speakers in said meeting were Pedipol, Jamper and Oscar Gomez, who likewise expounded
their own opinions about the NPA. It was also announced in said seminar that a certain Tonio
Burgos, will be responsible for the collection of the contribution from the members. (TSN, pages 78-
79, Hearing- January 4, 1983)

On May 12, 1982, however, Cesar Masamlok surrendered to Captain Bargio of the Provincial
Headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary, Digos, Davao del Sur.

Assistant Provincial Fiscal Panfilo Lovitos was presented t prove that on May 19, 1982, he
administered the subscription of th extra-judicial confession of accused Ruben Burgos, marked as
Exhibit "E " for the prosecution, consisting of five (5) pages.

Appearing voluntarily in said office, for the subscription of his confession, Fiscal Lovitos, realizing
that accused was not represented by counsel, requested the services of Atty. Anyog, whose office is
adjacent to the Fiscal's Office, to assist accused in the subscription of his extra-judicial statement.

Atty. Anyog assisted accused in the reading of his confession from English to Visayan language,
resulting to the deletion of question No. 19 of the document, by an inserted certification of Atty.
Anyog and signature of accused, indicating his having understood, the allegations of his extra-
judicial statement.

Fiscal Lovitos, before accused signed his statement, explained to him his constitutional rights to
remain silent, right to counsel and right to answer any question propounded or not.

With the aid of Atty. Anyog, accused signed his confession in the presence of Atty. Anyog and Fiscal
Lovitos, without the presence of military authorities, who escorted the accused, but were sent
outside the cubicle of Fiscal Lovitos while waiting for the accused. (TSN, pages 36-40, nearing
November 15, 1982)

Finally, in order to prove illegal possession by accused of the subject firearm, Sgt. Epifanio Comabig
in-charge of firearms and explosives, NCO Headquarter, Philippine Constabulary, Digos, Davao del
Sur, was presented and testified, that among the lists of firearm holders in Davao del Sur, nothing
was listed in the name of accused Ruben Burgos, neither was his name included among the lists of
persons who applied for the licensing of the firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1745.

After the above-testimony the prosecution formally closed its case and offered its exhibits, which
were all admitted in evidence, despite objection interposed by counsel for accused, which was
accordingly overruled.

On the other hand, the defendant-appellant's version of the case against him is stated in the decision as follows:

From his farm, the military personnel, whom he said he cannot recognize, brought him to the PC
Barracks at Digos, Davao del Sur, and arrived there at about 3:00 o'clock, on the same date. At
about 8:00 o'clock P.M., in the evening, he was investigated by soldiers, whom he cannot Identify
because they were wearing a civilian attire. (TSN, page 14 1, Hearing-June 15, 1983)

The investigation was conducted in the PC barracks, where he was detained with respect to the
subject firearm, which the investigator, wished him to admit but accused denied its ownership.
Because of his refusal accused was mauled, hitting him on the left and right side of his body which
rendered him unconscious. Accused in an atmosphere of tersed solemnity, crying and with
emotional attachment, described in detail how he was tortured and the ordeals he was subjected.
He said, after recovery of his consciousness, he was again confronted with subject firearm, Exhibit
"A", for him to admit and when he repeatedly refused to accept as his own firearm, he was subjected
to further prolong (sic) torture and physical agony. Accused said, his eyes were covered with wet
black cloth with pungent effect on his eyes. He was undressed, with only blindfold, pungent water
poured in his body and over his private parts, making his entire body, particularly his penis and
testicle, terribly irritating with pungent pain.

All along, he was investigated to obtain his admission, The process of beating, mauling, pain and/or
ordeal was repeatedly done in similar cycle, from May 13 and 14, 1982. intercepted only whenever
he fell unconscious and again repeated after recovery of his senses,

Finally on May 15, 1982, after undergoing the same torture and physical ordeal he was seriously
warned, if he will still adamantly refuse to accept ownership of the subject firearm, he will be
salvaged, and no longer able to bear any further the pain and agony, accused admitted ownership of
subject firearm.

After his admission, the mauling and torture stopped, but accused was made to sign his affidavit
marked as Exhibit "E" for the prosecution, consisting of five (5) pages, including the certification of
the administering officer, (TSN, pages 141-148, Hearing-June 15, 1983)

In addition to how he described the torture inflicted on him, accused, by way of explanation and
commentary in details, and going one by one, the allegations and/or contents of his alleged
extrajudicial statement, attributed his answers to those questions involuntarily made only because of
fear, threat and intimidation of his person and family, as a result of unbearable excruciating pain he
was subjected by an investigator, who, unfortunately he cannot Identify and was able to obtain his
admission of the subject firearm, by force and violence exerted over his person.

To support denial of accused of being involved in any subversive activities, and also to support his
denial to the truth of his alleged extra-judicial confession, particularly questions Nos. 35, 38, 41, 42,
43, 44, 45, 46 and 47, along with qqqs answers to those questions, involving Honorata Arellano
ahas Inday Arellano, said Honorata Arellano appeared and declared categorically, that the above-
questions embraced in the numbers allegedly stated in the extrajudicial confession of accused,
involving her to such NPA personalities, as Jamper, Pol, Anthony, etc., were not true because on the
date referred on April 28, 1982, none of the persons mentioned came to her house for treatment,
neither did she meet the accused nor able to talk with him. (TSN, pages 118- 121, Hearing-May 18,
1983)

She, however, admitted being familiar with one Oscar Gomez, and that she was personally charged
with subversion in the Office of the Provincial Commander, Philippine Constabulary, Digos, Davao
del Sur, but said charge was dismissed without reaching the Court. She likewise stated that her son,
Rogelio Arellano, was likewise charged for subversion filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Digos,
Davao del Sur, but was likewise dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
(TSN, pages 121-122, in relation to her cross-examination, Hearing-May 18, 1983)

To support accused's denial of the charge against him, Barangay Captain of Tiguman, Digos, Davao
del Sur, Salvador qqqGalaraga was presented, who declared, he was not personally aware of any
subversive activities of accused, being his neighbor and member of his barrio. On the contrary, he
can personally attest to his good character and reputation, as a law abiding citizen of his barrio,
being a carpenter and farmer thereat. (TSl pages 128-129, Hearing-May 18, 1983)

He however, admitted in cross-examination, that there were a lot of arrests made by the authorities
in his barrio involving subversive activities but they were released and were not formally charged in
Court because they publicly took their oath of allegiance with the government. (TSN, pages 133-134,
in relation to page 136, Hearing-May 18, 1983)

Finally, to support accused's denial of the subject firearm, his wife, Urbana Burgos, was presented
and who testified that the subject firearm was left in their house by Cesar Masamlok and one Pedipol
on May 10, 1982. It was night time, when the two left the gun, alleging that it was not in order, and
 that they will leave it behind, temporarily for them to claim it later. They were the ones who buried it.
She said, her husband, the accused, was not in their house at that time and that she did not inform
him about said firearm neither did she report the matter to the authorities, for fear of the life of her
husband. (TSN, page 24, November 22, 1983)

On cross-examination, she said, even if Masamlok during the recovery of the firearm, was wearing a
mask, she can still Identify him. (TSN, page 6, Hearing-November 22, 1983)

After 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 Revised Administrative Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 4, reflected in the manifestation of counsel for accused. (TSN,
pages 113-114, Hearing-May 18, 1983)

Accused-appellant Ruben Burgos now raises the following assignments of error, to wit:

I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT (SIC) THE ARREST OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT
WITHOUT VALID WARRANT TO BE LAWFUL.

II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE SEARCH IN THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT FOR FIREARM WITHOUT VALID WARRANT TO BE LAWFUL.

III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF P.D. No. 9 IN RELATION TO GENERAL ORDERS
NOS. 6 AND 7

Was the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful? Were the search of his house and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm
and documents allegedly found therein conducted in a lawful and valid manner? Does the evidence sustaining the
crime charged meet the test of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

The records of the case disclose that when the police authorities went to the house of Ruben Burgos for the purpose
of arresting him upon information given by Cesar Masamlok that the accused allegedly recruited him to join the New
People's Army (NPA), they did not have any warrant of arrest or search warrant with them (TSN, p. 25, October 14,
1982; and TSN, p. 61, November 15, 1982).

Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The constitutional provision is a safeguard against wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy and liberty of a
citizen as to his person, papers and effects. This Court explained in Villanueva vs. Querubin (48 SCRA 345) why
this right is so important:

It 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. Hoffa v. United States, 385 US 293 [19661) What is sought to be guarded is a
man's prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. In that haven of refuge, his
individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but likewise in the kind
of objects he wants around him. There the state, however powerful, does not as such have access
except under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however
humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called
upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life, (Cf.
 Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757 [1966], Brennan, J. and Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616,
630 [1886]). In the same vein, Landynski in his authoritative work (Search and Seizure and the
Supreme Court [1966], could fitly characterize 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 except in case of overriding social need, and then
only under stringent procedural safeguards.' (Ibid, p. 47).

The trial court justified the arrest of the accused-appelant without any warrant as falling under one of the instances
when arrests may be validly made without a warrant. Rule 113, Section 6 * of the Rules of Court, provides the
exceptions as follows:

a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his
presence;

b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed it;

c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.

The Court stated that even if there was no warrant for the arrest of Burgos, the fact that "the authorities received an
urgent report of accused's involvement in subversive activities from a reliable source (report of Cesar Masamlok) the
circumstances of his arrest, even without judicial warrant, is lawfully within the ambit of Section 6-A of Rule 113 of
the Rules of Court and applicable jurisprudence on the matter."

If the arrest is valid, the consequent search and seizure of the firearm and the alleged subversive documents would
become an incident to a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126, Section 12, which states:

A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may
be used as proof of the commission of the offense.

The conclusions reached by the trial court are erroneous.

Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to
commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence
or within his view. (Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).

There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it
came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given by the
appellant's wife.

At the time of the appellant's arrest, he was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. Neither
was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his field at the time of
the arrest.

The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is
a most basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of
arrest is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing a warrant would be
absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests
without warrant or extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon
personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection.

The Solicitor General is of the persuasion that the arrest may still be considered lawful under Section 6(b) using the
test of reasonableness. He submits that. the information given by Cesar Masamlok was sufficient to induce a
reasonable ground that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe
that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first.
That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may
have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground
applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities
to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet
ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened
wife cannot make the arrest lawful, If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally
nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also
tainted.

More important, we find no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the
accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they
had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. There is no showing that there was
a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the
whereabouts of the accused were unknown,

The basis for the action taken by the arresting officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok who was not
required to subscribe his allegations under oath. There was no compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges
under pain of criminal prosecution. (TSN, p. 24, October 14, 1982). Consequently, the need to go through the
process of securing a search warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. The arrest of the accused
while he was plowing his field is illegal. The arrest being unlawful, the search and seizure which transpired
afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest.

Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver, or that consent was given by the accused to be searched
simply because he failed to object. To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the
person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said person
had an actual intention to relinquish the right (Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689). The fact that the
accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein
(Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770). As pointed out by Justice Laurel in the case of Pasion Vda. de Garcia V. Locsin
(supra)

xxx xxx xxx

. . . As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts
do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer's authority by force, or waiving
his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is
not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of
the law. (56 C.J., pp. 1180, 1181).

We apply the rule that: "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional
rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." (Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S.
458).

That the accused-appellant was not apprised of any of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest is evident
from the records:

A CALAMBA:

Q When you went to the area to arrest Ruben Burgos, you were not armed with an arrest
warrant?

A None Sir.

Q Neither were you armed with a search warrant?

 A No Sir.

Q As a matter of fact, Burgos was not present in his house when you went there?

A But he was twenty meters away from his house.

Q Ruben Burgos was then plowing his field?

A Yes Sir.

Q When you called for Ruben Burgos you interviewed him?

A Yes Sir.

Q And that you told him that Masamlok implicated him?

A No Sir.

Q What did you tell him?

A That we received information that you have a firearm, you surrender that firearm, first
he denied but when Sgt. Buncalan interviewed his wife, his wife told him that it is buried, I
dug the firearm which was wrapped with a cellophane.

Q In your interview of Burgos you did not remind him of his rights under the constitution
considering that he was purposely under arrest?

A I did not.

Q As a matter of fact, he denied that he has ever a gun?

A Yes Sir.

Q As a matter of fact, the gun was not in his possession?

A It was buried down in his horse.

Q As a matter of fact, Burgos did not point to where it was buried?

A Yes Sir.

(TSN, pp. 25-26, Hearing-October 14, 1982)

Considering that the questioned firearm and the alleged subversive documents were obtained in violation of the
accused's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, it follows that they are inadmissible as
evidence.

There is another aspect of this case.

In proving ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents, the prosecution presented the
two arresting officers who testified that the accused readily admitted ownership of the gun after qqqs wife pointed to
the place where it was buried. The officers stated that it was the accused himself who voluntarily pointed to the
place where the alleged subversive documents were hidden.

Assuming this to be true, it should be recalled that the accused was never informed of his constitutional rights at the
time of his arrest. So that when the accused allegedly admitted ownership of the gun and pointed to the location of
the subversive documents after questioning, the admissions were obtained in violation of the constitutional right
against self-incrimination under Sec. 20 of Art. IV of the Bill of Rights winch provides:

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any 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.. . .

The Constitution itself mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible in evidence.
Consequently, the testimonies of the arresting officers as to the admissions made by the appellant cannot be used
against him.

The trial court validly rejected the extra-judicial confession of the accused as inadmissible in evidence. The court
stated that the appellant's having been exhaustively subjected to physical terror, violence, and third degree
measures may not have been supported by reliable evidence but the failure to present the investigator who
conducted the investigation gives rise to the "provocative presumption" that indeed torture and physical violence
may have been committed as stated.

The accused-appellant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial
interrogation. The lower court correctly pointed out that the securing of counsel, Atty. Anyog, to help the accused
when he subscribed under oath to his statement at the Fiscal's Office was too late. It could have no palliative effect.
It cannot cure the absence of counsel at the time of the custodial investigation when the extrajudicial statement was
being taken.

With the extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents inadmissible in evidence
against the accused-appellant, the only remaining proof to sustain the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm in
Furtherance of Subversion is the testimony of Cesar Masamlok.

We find the testimony of Masamlok inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the trial
court found Masamlok's testimony credible and convincing. However, we are not necessarily bound by the credibility
which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. As stated in People vs.. Cabrera (100 SCRA 424):

xxx xxx xxx

. . .Time and again we have stated that when it comes to question of credibility the findings of the
trial court are entitled to great respect upon appeal for the obvious reason th+at it was able to
observe the demeanor, actuations and deportment of the witnesses during the trial. But we have
also said that this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be no reversals of convictions upon
appeal. We must reject the findings of the trial court where the record discloses circumstances of
weight and substance which were not properly appreciated by the trial court.

The situation under which Cesar Masamlok testified is analogous to that found in People vs. Capadocia (17 SCRA
98 1):

. . . The case against appellant is built on Ternura's testimony, and the issue hinges on how much
credence can be accorded to him. The first consideration is that said testimony stands
uncorroborated. Ternura was the only witness who testified on the mimeographing incident. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

. . .He was a confessed Huk under detention at the time. He knew his fate depended upon how
much he cooperated with the authorities, who were then engaged in a vigorous anti-dissident
campaign. As in the case of Rodrigo de Jesus, whose testimony We discounted for the same
reason, that of Ternura cannot be considered as proceeding from a totally unbiased source. . . .

In the instant case, Masamlok's testimony was totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok surrendered to
the military certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities. Otherwise, he would also
be charged with subversion. The trade-off appears to be his membership in the Civil Home Defense Force. (TSN, p.
83, January 4, 1983). Masamlok may be considered as an interested witness. It can not be said that his testimony is
free from the opportunity and temptation to be exaggerated and even fabricated for it was intended to secure his
freedom.

Despite the fact that there were other persons present during the alleged NPA seminar of April 19, 1982 i.e.,
Masamlok's father ,Matuguil Masamlok, Isabel Ilan and Ayok Ides (TSN, p. 74, January 4, 1983) who could have
corroborated Cesar Masamlok'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 witness.

This 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.

As held in the case of People vs. Baia (34 SCRA 347):

It is evident that once again, reliance can be placed on People v. Dramayo (42 SCRA 59), where
after stressing that accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt, it
was made clear: 'Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that
the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should
the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence
be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest
suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The 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. What is required then is moral certainty.' (Ibid, 64. Cf. People v.
Alvarez, 55 SCRA 81; People v. Joven, 64 SCRA 126; People vs. Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144; People
vs. Godov 72 SCRA 69; People v. Lopez, 74 SCRA 205; People v. Poblador, 76 SCRA 634; People
v. Quiazon, 78 SCRA 513; People v. Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484; People vs. Gabilan 115 SCRA 1;
People v. Gabiana, 117 SCRA 260; and People vs. Ibanga 124 SCRA 697).

We are aware of the serious problems faced by the military in Davao del Sur where there appears to be a well-
organized plan to overthrow the Government through armed struggle and replace it with an alien system based on a
foreign ideology. The open defiance against duly constituted authorities has resulted in unfortunate levels of
violence and human suffering publicized all over the country and abroad. Even as we reiterate the need for all
freedom loving citizens to assist the military authorities in their legitimate efforts to maintain peace and national
security, we must also remember the dictum in Morales vs. Enrile (1 21 SCRA 538, 569) when this Court stated:

While the government should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the
lawless with an the means at its command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is
taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws.

Violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion. A cavalier attitude towards constitutional liberties
and protections will only fan the increase of subversive activities instead of containing and suppressing them.

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

The subject firearm involved in this case (homemade revolver, caliber .38, Smith and Wesson, with Serial No.
8.69221) and the alleged subversive documents are ordered disposed of in accordance with law.

Cost de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Paras, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure have made clearer the exceptions when an arrest may be
made without warrant. Rule 113, Section 5 provides:

Arrest without warrant when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense,

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest Police station or i jail and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 11 2, Section 7. 6a 17a).