Documents

People vs. Burgos (G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986)

Description
CRIM
Categories
Published
of 3
260
Categories
Published
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Similar Documents
Share
Transcript
  Closet Fantasies  Saturday, December 31, 2011 People vs. Burgos (G.R. No. L-68955 September 4,1986) G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant.Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao delSur. From the information filed by the police authorities upon the informationgiven by Masamlok, allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, thepolice authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. Subsequently,certain NPA-related documents and a firearm, allegedly issued and used by oneAlias Cmdr. Pol of the NPA, are confiscated. Defendant denies being involved inany subversive activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to acceptownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements havebeen made only under fear, threat and intimidation on his person and his family.He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant, that thetrial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful,and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt forviolation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7.Issue: If defendant’s arrest, the search of his home, and the subsequentconfiscation of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful.Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendant’s house to arresthim upon the information given by Masamlok, they had neither search nor arrestwarrant with them—in wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, sec 2). Asthe Court held in Villanueva vs Querubin, the state, however powerful,doesn’t have access to a man’s home, his haven of refuge where hisindividuality can assert itself in his choice of welcome and in the kind of objects he wants around him . In the traditional formulation, a man’s house,however humble, is his castle, and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion bythe government.The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC:a)   When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,or is about to commit an offense in his presence;b)   When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonableground 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 apenal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment ortemporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped whilebeing transferred from one confinement to anotherand the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126, Sec 12:A person charged with an of fense may be searched for dangerous weaponsor anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion  that said warrantless !  2012 (18)  2011 (17)  December  (5)People vs. Burgos(G.R. No. L-68955September 4,1...Stonehill vs.DioknoPeople vs MartiPeople vs CayatOrmoc Sugar Company Inc.vs Treasurer of Ormoc Cit... !  November  (4) !  July (8) Blog Archive  Maria Lucero Case digests anda whole lot more,occasionallywritten in Filipinoto amuse herself and at thesame time ensure maximumcomprehension. An old trick of humanities graduates. Theblogger has a degree in BAComparative Literature, major in European Literatures, from aprominent state university. Shehas had experience as a copywriter and an English teacher,and is currently a law studentin a respected college. She isalso trying her hand at satireand parody in order to lightenup her life. The delusional !  iter of     is blawg  Higit Pa Susunod na Blog»Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in   Posted by Maria Lucero at  3:23 AM   Labels:  Arrests Searches and Seizures  , Case Digest  , Consti 2  arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At the time of defendant’sarrest, he wasn’t in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document,and was not committing any “subversive” act—he was plowing his field. It is notenough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to bearrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. An essentialprecondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or actually have beencommitted first; it isn’t enough to suspect a crime may have beencommitted.  The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of theperpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with whichthe arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failedto first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed theyhad 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 onthe verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereaboutsof the accused were unknown.In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversivedocuments, assuming they were really illegal, the defendant was never informedof his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest; thus the admissions obtainedare in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec 20Art IV (now Sec 12, Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence.Furthermore, the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to beassisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation. His extra-judicialconfession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents are allinadmissible as evidence. In light of the aforementioned, defendant is acquittedon grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with which he has been charged.Subject firearm and alleged subversive documents have been disposed of inaccordance with law.The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help inovercoming a rebellion. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile , “ while the governmentshould continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels,and the lawless with the means at its command, it should always beremembered that whatever action is taken must always be within theframework of our Constitution and our laws .”  Recommend this on Google Enter your comment... Comment as:  Google Accoun Publish   Preview No comments:Post a Comment View my complete profile   Newer PostOlder Post Home  Subscribe to:  Post Comments (Atom)  Awesome Inc. template. Template images by   jusant  . Powered by  Blogger  .

Roof Covering

Jul 23, 2017
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x