2. Warrantless Arrest a. When justified e. Exceptions construed strictly Second Division People v. Burgos GR No. L-68955 September ! "986 Gutierre#! $% &'cts% According to the government, one Cesar Masamlok surrendered to the authorities and pointed accused u!en "urgos as a mem!er of the #$A %ho threatened threatened to kill him and his family if he refused to join. &he police then formed a task force to arrest "urgos. &hey %ent to "urgos "urgos'' reside residence nce %here %here they they sa% him plo%i plo%ing ng his field. field. &hey &hey arrested him and recovered from his house a cali!er .() revolver !uried under the ground. The arrest was made without any warrant or at least a search search warrant warrant.. He was also also not reminde reminded d of his constitutional rights. *o%ever, according according to accused "urgos, he %as not a mem!er of the #$A. &he gun %as actually !uried !y Masamlok himself a fe% days !efore the arrest %ithout the former's kno%ledge since he %as not in his house then. +t %as only his %ife %ho %as present and she %as threatened !y Masamlok not to report the gun to the authorities. After After his %arrantless arrest, he disclosed that he %as tortured for days to admit the o%nership of the recovered revolver. (ssues% (ssues% "st (ssue% Whether or not the %arrantless arrest of "urgos is justified )nd (ssue% Whether or not the exceptions in arrest %ith %arrant can !e li!erally construed as in the case of "urgos' arrest *eld%
". #o, the %arrantless arrest of "urgos is not justified. ). #o, the exceptions must !e strictly construed.
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.
&he !asis for the action taken !y the arresting officer %as the ver!al report made !y Masamlok %ho %as not reuired to su!scri!e his allegations under oath. &here %as no compulsion for him to state trut truthf hful ully ly his his char charge ges s unde underr pain pain of crim crimin inal al pros prosec ecut utio ion. n. Conseuently, the need to go through the process of securing a search %arrant and a %arrant of arrest !ecomes even clearer. &he arrest arrest of the accused accused %hile he %as plo%ing plo%ing his field is illegal. &he arrest arrest !eing unla%ful, unla%ful, the search search and sei-ure sei-ure %hich %hich transpired transpired after% after%ard ards s could could not like%i like%ise se !e deemed deemed legal legal as !eing !eing mere mere incidents to a valid arrest.
+Note +Note%% Ple'se Ple'se re'd re'd t,e discus discussio sion n 'bout 'bout t,e ecept eception ions s to urt,er underst'nd /,0 t,e /'rr'ntless 'rrest o Burgos /'s not 1ustiied2
The exceptions must be strictly construed
ule (, /ection 0 of the ules of Court, provides the exceptions as follo%s1
a When When the person person to !e arrest arrested ed has committe committed, d, is actual actually ly committing, or is a!out to commit an offense in his presence3
R'tio% The warrantless arrest of Ruben Burgos was not justified
We find no compelling reason for the haste %ith %hich the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see %hy they failed to first go through the process of o!taining a %arrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasona!le ground to !elieve that the accused had
! When an offense offense has in fact !een !een commit committed ted,, and he has reasona!le ground to !elieve that the person to !e arrested has committed it3
c When the person to !e arrested is a prisoner %ho has escaped from a penal esta!lishment or place %here he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined %hile his case is pending or has escaped %hile !eing transferred from one confinement to another.
4nder /ection 05a of ule (, the officer arresting a person %ho has just committed, is committing, or is a!out to commit an offense must have personal kno%ledge of that fact. &he offense must also !e committed in his presence or %ithin his vie%.
&here is no such personal kno%ledge in this case. Whatever kno%ledge %as possessed !y the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information furnished !y Cesar Masamlok. &he location of the firearm %as given !y the appellant6s %ife.
At the time of the appellant6s arrest, he %as not in actual possession of any firearm or su!versive document. #either %as he committing any act %hich could !e descri!ed as su!versive. *e %as, in fact, plo%ing his field at the time of the arrest.
&he right of a person to !e secure against any unreasona!le sei-ure of his !ody and any deprivation of his li!erty is a most !asic 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.
an the Reasonableness Test be used to justify the warrantless arrest made against Burgos! "#nder $ec. %"b&&
No.
&he government reasoned that the information given !y Cesar Masamlok %as sufficient to induce a reasona!le ground that a crime has !een committed and that the accused %as pro!a!ly guilty thereof.
+n arrests %ithout a %arrant under /ection 05!, ho%ever, it is not enough that there is reasona!le ground to !elieve that the person to !e arrested has committed a crime. ' crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. +t is not enough to suspect that a crime may have !een committed. &he fact of the commission of the offense must !e undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.
