People V Burgos Digest

2. Warrantless Arrest escape.
Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of

a. When justified the accused were unknown.
e. Exceptions construed strictly
The basis for the action taken by the arresting officer was the verbal
Second Division report made by Masamlok who was not required to subscribe his
People v. Burgos allegations under oath. There was no compulsion for him to state
GR No. L-68955 truthfully his charges under pain of criminal prosecution.
September 4, 1986 Consequently, the need to go through the process of securing a
search warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even clearer. The
Gutierrez, J: arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is illegal. The
arrest being unlawful, the search and seizure which transpired
Facts: According to the government, one Cesar Masamlok surrendered to afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere
the authorities and pointed accused Ruben Burgos as a member of incidents to a valid arrest.
the NPA who threatened to kill him and his family if he refused to join.
The police then formed a task force to arrest Burgos. They went to (Note: Please read the discussion about the exceptions to further
Burgos’ residence where they saw him plowing his field. They arrested understand why the warrantless arrest of Burgos was not
him and recovered from his house a caliber .38 revolver buried under justified)
the ground. The arrest was made without any warrant or at least a
search warrant. He was also not reminded of his constitutional rights.
The exceptions must be strictly construed
However, according to accused Burgos, he was not a member of the
NPA. The gun was actually buried by Masamlok himself a few days Rule 113, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, provides the exceptions as
before the arrest without the former’s knowledge since he was not in follows:
his house then. It was only his wife who was present and she was
threatened by Masamlok not to report the gun to the authorities. After a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
his warrantless arrest, he disclosed that he was tortured for days to committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence;
admit the ownership of the recovered revolver.
b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has
Issues: 1st Issue: reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Burgos is justified committed it;
2nd Issue: c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
Whether or not the exceptions in arrest with warrant can be liberally a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment
construed as in the case of Burgos’ arrest or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Held: 1. No, the warrantless arrest of Burgos is not justified.
2. No, the exceptions must be strictly construed. 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
Ratio: The warrantless arrest of Ruben Burgos was not justified have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be
committed in his presence or within his view.
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 There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever
first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its
they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The
committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real location of the firearm was given by the appellant's wife.
apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or
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.
Can the Reasonableness Test be used to justify the warrantless

arrest made against Burgos? (Under Sec. 6(b))
No.
The government reasoned that the information given by Cesar

Masamlok was sufficient to induce a reasonable ground that a crime
has been committed and that the accused was 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.

People V Burgos Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Burgos Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Burgos Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2. Warrantless Arrest escape.

Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of

The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure

Can the Reasonableness Test be used to justify the warrantless

The government reasoned that the information given by Cesar

In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not

You might also like