People vs. Burgos

The State (P) vs. Suspect NPA Rebel (D)
GR L-68955, September 4, 1986 (144 SCRA 1)	[T]

Summary: An informant identified a certain person as a member of a subversive group who forcibly recruited him and based on this information, the police went to arrest the suspect. At the time of the arrest, the suspect was merely plowing his field.

Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, 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.

Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities stating that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as member of the NPA, threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused. Pursuant to this information, PC-INP members went to the house of the Burgos (D) and saw him plowing his field when they arrived. One of the arresting offices called Burgos (D) and asked him about the firearm. At first, Burgos (D) denied having any firearm, but later, Burgos's (D) wife pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground.

After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a stock pile of cogon where the officers recovered alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further admitted that the firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.


Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

Ruling: No. 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 vs. 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 wife of Burgos (D).

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 Burgos (D) 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 afterward can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.