People vs Ruben Burgos

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

People vs Ruben Burgos
G.R. No. L-68955
September 4, 1986
Concur: GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

Facts:

The lower court laid down its decision to the defendant-appellant with the crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion. That in the afternoon of May 13, 1982 and thereabout at Tiguman, Digos, Davao del Sur, Philippines, the accused possessed without the necessary license, permit or authority issued by the proper government agencies, one (1) homemade revolver, caliber .38 with Serial No. 8.69221. The firearm was issued to and used by the accused at his area in Davao del Sur on 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.

Issues:

a)Whether or not the arrest of the appellant-accused without any valid warrant is legal and for the search of firearm in his house without valid warrant is lawful?

b)Whether he violated Presidential Decree No. 9 in relation to General Orders Nos. 6 & 7?

Held:

Rule 113, Section 6 of the Rules of Court

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."

In proving ownership of the firearm

The constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec. 20 of Art. IV of the Bill of Rights winch provides that, “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 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. 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.