Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-399
soldiers caught an American aviator and had the witness carry the
and a judgment was rendered finding the two defendants guilty and
was one individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat eleven
second boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the
A very learned and exhaustive brief has been filed in this court by
the attorney de officio. By a process of elimination, however,
certain questions can be quickly disposed of.
The proven facts are not disputed. All of the elements of the crime
of piracy are present. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on
the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi, and
in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
It cannot be contended with any degree of force as was done in the
lover court and as is again done in this court, that the Court of First
Instance was without jurisdiction of the case. Pirates are in
law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any
particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be
found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy
unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so
may it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was
committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state,
"for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes."
(U.S. vs. Furlong [1820], 5 Wheat., 184.)
ART. 155. With respect to the provisions of this title, as well as all
for decision for the first time is whether or not the provisions of the
Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force. Article
another State to the United States are well-known. The political law
of the former sovereignty is necessarily changed. The municipal law
It cannot admit of doubt that the articles of the Spanish Penal Code
Filipinos.
The opinion of Grotius was that piracy by the law of nations is the
same thing as piracy by the civil law, and he has never been
disputed. The specific provisions of the Penal Code are similar in
public law. This must necessarily be so, considering that the Penal
shall have the power to define and punish piracies and felonies
nations. (U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 10.) The Congress, in putting
so far as they are compatible with the new order of things, until
and practice they are not usually abrogated, but are allowed to
found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life. (U.S. Crim.
Code, sec. 290; penalty formerly death: U.S. Rev. Stat., sec. 5368.)
We hold those provisions of the Penal code dealing with the crime
Philippines.
The crime falls under the first paragraph of article 153 of the Penal
Code in relation to article 154. There are present at least two of the
like the articles dealing with the crime of piracy, would be that
similar reasoning led this court in the case of United States vs.
imposed. In this connection, the trial court, finding present the one
comprehend all religious, military, and civil officers, but only public
and appellant Lo-lo (the accused who raped on of the women), but
is not unanimous with regard to the court, Mr. Justice Romualdez,
registers his nonconformity. In accordance with provisions of Act
No. 2726, it results, therefore, that the judgment of the trial court
as to the defendant and appellant Saraw is affirmed, and is
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Jaime Rodriguez alias Jimmy alias Wilfred de Lara y
Medrano, Rico Lopez, Davao Reyes alias Dario Dece Raymundo y
Elausa and Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay alias Peter Power were
charged of the crime of piracy in an information filed before the
then Court of First Instance of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, which reads:
That on or about 3:15 in the morning of August 31, 1981, at the
vicinity of Muligin Island and within the territorial waters of the
Municipality of Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi, Province of Tawi-Tawi, and
within the jurisdiction of this honorable Court, the above-named
accused Wilfred de Lara y Medrano, alias Jaime Rodriguez (Jimmy)
Dario Dece Raymundo y Elausa; Rico Lopez y Fernandez and Peter
Ponce y Bulaybulay alias Peter Power being crew members of the
M/V Noria 767, a barter trade vessel of Philippine registry,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another and armed with bladed weapons and high caliber firearms,
to wit: three (3) daggers, two (2) M-14, one (1) garand and one (1)
Browning Automatic Rifle, with intent of gain and by means of
violence and intimidation upon persons, did then and there willfully
and unlawfuflly, and feloniously take, steal and carry away against
the consent of the owners thereof, the equipments and other
the will of said accused, that is, by the timely and able medical
After trial, he was found guilty and was also sentenced "to suffer
the extreme penalty of death."
No pronouncement was made with respect to the civil liabilities of
the four defendants because "there was a separate civil action for
breach of contract and damages filed with the same trial court in
Civil Case No. N-85 against the several defendants, including the
four accused aforementioned." (p. 26, L-61069)
was not hit. He and some of his men crawled and they took cover in
the bodega of copra. While in hiding there were gunfires coming
from Dario Dece and Peter Ponce. About four (4) hours later, his
Chief Mate Usman persuaded him to come out otherwise something
worse would happen. He saw Jaime Rodriguez who ordered him to
direct his men to throw the copras as well as the dead bodies
overboard.
About ten o'clock in the morning of the same day, the vessel
reached an island where the four appellants were able to secure
pumpboats. Macasaet was ordered to load in one of the pumpboats
nine (9) attache cases which were full of money. Rico Lopez and
Jaime Rodriguez boarded one pumpboat, while Peter Ponce and
Dario Dece boarded another, bringing with them: dressed chicken,
softdrinks, durian, boxes of ammunitions, gallons of water and
some meat, as well as rifles.
Municipal Health Officer Leopoldo Lao went aboard the vessel M/V
Noria when it arrived at Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi on September 2,
1981 and saw at the wharf ten dead bodies, all victims of the seajacking, namely: Gulam Sahiddan, Arajul Naran Salialam, Mallang
Saupi, Guilbert Que, Frederico Canizares, Masihul Bandahala,
Ribowan Majid Edgar Tan, Omar Sabdani Tahir and Abdurasul
Salialam.
In their brief, appellants Jaime Rodriguez, Rico Lopez and Dario
Dece claim that the trial court erred (1) in imposing the death
penalty to the accused-appellants Jaime Rodriguez alias Wilfred de
Lara, Rico Lopez y Fernandez and Davao de Reyes, alias Dario Dece
Raymundo y Elausa despite their plea of guilty; (2) in giving weight
to the alleged sworn statements of Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay,
Identified as Exhibits "C" to "C-10" and Exhibits "I to I-5", as
evidence against Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay; (3) in holding that
accused-appellant Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay is guilty of the crime of
piracy; (4) in holding that the defense of Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay
was merely a denial; and, (5) in holding that Peter Ponce y
Bulaybulay entrusted the P1,700.00 which was his personal money
to Atty. Efren Capulong of the National Bureau of Investigation.
10
11
disregard of human lives and the fact that after the looting and
killing, appellant Peter Ponce, still armed, joined Dario Dece in one
pumpboat, there can be no question that he was in conspiracy with
the three other defendants. After his arrest, Ponce gave a
statement to the authorities stating therein his participation as well
as those of his companions (Exhibits "I" to "I-1").
The four (4) appellants were arrested and detained by the
Malaysian authorities. On January 8, 1982, the National Bureau of
Investigation authorities fetched and brought them to Manila where
they executed their respective statements after Rico Lopez and
Peter Ponce delivered to the NBI, P3,700.00 and P1,700.00,
respectively, aside from the P527,595.00 and one Rolex watch
which the Malaysian authorities also turned over to the Acting InCharge of the NBI in Jolo.
The statement of Ponce (Exhibit " I ") contains the questions and
answers pertinent to Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution, to wit:
l. QUESTION: Mr. Peter Ponce, we are informing you that you are
under investigation here in connection with the robbery committed
on the M/V Noria last August 31, 1981, where you are an Assistant
Engineer. You have a right to remain silent and to refuse to answer
any of our questions here. You have the right to be represented by
counsel of your choice in this investigation. Should you decide to be
represented by a lawyer but cannot afford one we will provide a
lawyer for you free. Should you decide to give a sworn statement,
the same shall be voluntary and free from force or intimidation or
promise of reward or leniency and anything that you saw here
maybe used for or against you in any court in the Philippines. Now
do you understand an these rights of yours?
12
An order of arrest was issued against all of the accused but only
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-57292 February 18, 1986
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JULAIDE SIYOH, OMAR-KAYAM KIRAM, NAMLI INDANAN and
ANDAW JAMAHALI, accused-appellants.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
This is an automatic review of the decision of the defunct Court of
First Instance of Basilan, Judge Jainal D. Rasul as ponente, imposing
After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision with the following
dispositive portion.
WHEREFORE, in view of the fore going considerations, this Court
finds the accused Omar-kayam Kiram and Julaide Siyoh guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Piracy with Triple
Murder and Frustrated Murder as defined and penalized under the
provision of Presidential Decree No. 532, and hereby sentences
each one of them to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.
However, considering the provision of Section 106 of the Code of
Mindanao and Sulu, the illiteracy or ignorance or extreme poverty
of the accused who are members of the cultural minorities, under a
regime of so called compassionate society, a commutation to life
imprisonment is recommended. (Id, p. 130.)
13
In their appeal, Siyo and Kiram make only one assignment of error:
had a total value of P18,000.00 (pp- 36-37, tsn). They left for Pilas
Island at 2:00 p.m. of July 10, 1979 on a pumpboat. They took their
The following day, July 11, 1979, de Guzman's group, together with
Kiram and Julaide Siyoh, started selling their goods, They were able
Alberto Aurea was a businessman engaged in selling dry goods at
to sell goods worth P 3,500.00. On July 12, 1979, the group, again
the Larmitan Public Market, in the province of Basilan (pp. 2-3, tsn).
(pp. 40-42, tsn). They returned to Pilas Island at 5:00 o'clock in the
sets and stereophono with total value of P15,000 more or less (pp.
Kiram did not sleep in his house, and upon inquiry the following day
4-6, tsn). The goods were received under an agreement that they
when Antonio de Guzman saw him, Kiram told the former that he
would pay the value of said goods to Aurea and keep part of the
profits for themselves. However these people neither paid the value
On that day, July 13, 1979, the group of Antonio de Guzman went
of the goods to Aurea nor returned the goods to him (pp. 6-7, tsn).
his group was held up near Baluk- Baluk Island and that his
Island for the night but Kiram did not sleep with them (p. 47, tsn).
companions were hacked (p. 8, tsn). On July 16, 1979, the bodies of
Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo Hiolen and Anastacio de Guzman were
brought by the PC seaborne patrol to Isabela, Basilan (pp. 17-18,
29, tsn). Only Antonio de Guzman survived the incident that caused
the death of his companions.
The following day, July 14, 1979, the group again went to BalukBaluk accompanied by Kiram and Siyoh (pp. 48, 50 t.s.n), They
used the pumpboat of Kiram. Kiram and Siyoh were at that time
armed with 'barongs'. They arrived at Baluk-Baluk at about 10:00
o'clock in the morning and upon arrival at the place Kiram and
his friends who were also travelling merchants like him, were on
away from the place where the group was selling its goods (pp. 50-
their way to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan, to sell the goods they
53, tsn). Kiram and Siyoh were seen by the group talking with two
received from Alberto Aurea. The goods they brought with them
persons whose faces the group saw but could not recognize (pp.
14
53-54, tsn). After selling their goods, the members of the group,
66-68, tsn).
On July 15, 1979, while waiting for the dead bodies of his
about 200 meters away from their pumpboat (pp. 55, tsn). Shortly
pointed them out to the PC and the two were arrested before they
could run. When arrested, Kiram was wearing the pants he took
two shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it moved towards
them (pp. 57-58, tsn). There were two persons on the other
Provincial Jail to get back his pants from Kiram (pp. 69-72, tsn).
15
1. That if they were the culprits they could have easily robbed their
suspect and robbing the victims before they had sold all their goods
with the latter's report and placed the accused under detention for
at sea and after they had sold all their goods was both timely and
The record does not support this assertion. For as the prosecution
informed them shortly after the incident that their husbands were
presented by the defense are all from Pilas Island and friends of the
Jamahali were the killers and not the former. But this claim is
fact. The defense may counter why the prosecution also failed to
present the Maluso Police Daily Event book? This matter has been
why take the pain in locating the army soldiers with whom the
showing reason why the lone survivor should pervert the truth or
two (2) armed strangers to whom the two accused talked in Baluk-
with triple murders and frustrated murder? The point which makes
without order from the two armed strangers transferred the unsold
16
both the facts and the law, it is affirmed with the following
and make them equally liable for the same crime (People vs. Pedro,
shall be reclusion perpetua; and (b) each of the appellants shall pay
16 SCRA 57; People vs. lndic 10 SCRA 130). The convergence of the
amply justifies the imputation of all of them the act of any of them
ORDERED.
gunshot wounds." (Exhs. D and E.) The cause is consistent with the
testimony of Antonio de Guzman that the victims were hacked; that
the appellants were armed with "barongs" while Indanan and
Jamahali were armed with armalites.
17
The are eight (8) petitioners for habeas corpus filed before the
Court, which have been consolidated because of the similarity of
issues raised, praying for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus,
ordering the respective respondents to produce the bodies of the
persons named therein and to explain why they should not be set
at liberty without further delay.
PER CURIAM:
18
19
therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the
nature of continuing crimes. As stated by the Court in an earlier
case:
From the facts as above-narrated, the claim of the petitioners that
they were initially arrested illegally is, therefore, without basis in
law and in fact. The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes
and offenses committed in the furtherance, on the occasion
thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under
Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of
continuing offenses which set them apart from the common
offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive
conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest of the
herein detainees was well within the bounds of the law and existing
jurisprudence in our jurisdiction.
2. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its
fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in
furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the
course of an armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the
purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory
offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure
in the prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by
a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a
judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is
bailable. Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal
impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt
acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder
acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement. The
arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation
that involves the very survival of society and its government and
duly constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of violence
against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed
hostilities which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or
insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely seizing
their persons and detaining them while any of these contingencies
continues cannot be less justified. . . . 3
20
II
b) One (1) Cal. .380 ACT/9mm Model PPK/8 SN: 260577 & 2605778;
In G.R. Nos. 84581-82 (Roque vs. De Villa), the arrest of Amelia
Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra, without warrant, is also justified.
When apprehended at the house of Renato Constantino in Marikina
Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila, Wilfredo Buenaobra admitted that
he was an NPA courier and he had with him letters to Renato
Constantino and other members of the rebel group. Amelia Roque,
upon the other hand, was a member of the National United Front
Commission, in charge of finance, and admitted ownership of
subversive documents found in the house of her sister in Caloocan
City. She was also in possession of ammunition and a fragmentation
grenade for which she had no permit or authority to possess.
The record of these two (2) cases shows that on 27 June 1988, one
Rogelio Ramos y Ibanes, a member of the NPA, who had
21
(13 August 1988). They arrived at the place at about 11:00 o'clock
in the morning. After identifying themselves as military agents and
after seeking permission to search the place, which was granted,
the military agents conducted a search in the presence of the
occupants of the house and the barangay captain of the place, one
Jesus D. Olba.
The military agents found the place to be another safehouse of the
NUFC/CPP. They found ledgers, journals, vouchers, bank deposit
books, folders, computer diskettes, and subversive documents as
well as live ammunition for a .38 SPL Winchester, 11 rounds of live
ammunition for a cal. .45, 19 rounds of live ammunition for an M16
Rifle, and a fragmentation grenade. As a result, Amelia Roque and
the other occupants of the house were brought to the PC-CIS
Headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City, for investigation.
Amelia Roque admitted to the investigators that the voluminous
documents belonged to her and that the other occupants of the
house had no knowledge of them. As a result, the said other
occupants of the house were released from custody.
On 15 August 1988, Amelia Roque was brought to the Caloocan
City Fiscal for inquest after which an information charging her with
violation of PD 1866 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City. The case is docketed therein as Criminal Case No. C1196. Another information for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act
was filed against Amelia Roque before the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Caloocan City, which is docketed therein as Criminal Case No. C150458.
An information for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed
against Wilfredo Buenaobra before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Marikina, Metro Manila. The case is docketed therein as Criminal
Case No. 23715. Bail was set at P4,000.00.
On 24 August 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed before
this Court on behalf of Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra. At
the hearing of the case, however, Wilfredo Buenaobra manifested
his desire to stay in the PC-INP Stockade at Camp Crame, Quezon
22
City. According, the petition for habeas corpus filed on his behalf is
now moot and academic. Only the petition of Amelia Roque remains
for resolution.
b) One (1) Cal. 7.65 MOD 83 2C Pistol SN: 001412 with one (1)
magazine for Cal. 7.65 containing ten (10) live ammunition of same
caliber;
c) One (1) Cal. 7.65 Pietro Barreta SN; A18868 last digit tampered
with one (1) magazine containing five (5) live ammunition of same
caliber.
III
In G.R. Nos. 84583-84 (Anonuevo vs. Ramos), the arrest
of Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, without warrant, is also
justified under the rules. Both are admittedly members of the
standing committee of the NUFC and, when apprehended in the
house of Renato Constatino, they had a bag containing subversive
materials, and both carried firearms and ammunition for which they
had no license to possess or carry.
The record of these two (2) cases shows that at about 7:30 o'clock
in the evening of 13 August 1988, Domingo T. Anonuevo and
Ramon Casiple arrived at the house of Renato Constatino at
Marikina Heights, Marikina, which was still under surveillance by
military agents. The military agents noticed bulging objects on their
waist lines. When frisked, the agents found them to be loaded
guns. Anonuevo and Casiple were asked to show their permit or
license to possess or carry firearms and ammunition, but they could
not produce any. Hence, they were brought to PC Headquarters for
investigation. Found in their possession were the following articles:
23
believe that the crime has been committed, and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof.
Nor did petitioners ask for a preliminary investigation after the
informations had been filed against them in court. Petitioners
cannot now claim that they have been deprived of their
constitutional right to due process.
IV
In G.R. No. 83162 (Ocaya vs. Aguirre), the arrest without warrant,
of Vicky Ocaya is justified under the Rules, since she had with her
unlicensed ammunition when she was arrested. The record of this
case shows that on 12 May 1988, agents of the PC Intelligence and
Investigation of the Rizal PC-INP Command, armed with a search
warrant issued by Judge Eutropio Migrino of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig, Metro Manila, conducted a search of a house located at
Block 19, Phase II, Marikina Green Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila,
believed to be occupied by Benito Tiamson, head of the CPP-NPA. In
the course of the search, Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car driven by
Danny Rivera. Subversive documents and several rounds of
ammunition for a .45 cal. pistol were found in the car of Vicky
Ocaya. As a result, Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera were brought to
the PC Headquarters for investigation. When Vicky Ocaya could not
produce any permit or authorization to possess the ammunition, an
information charging her with violation of PD 1866 was filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila. The case is docketed
therein as Criminal Case No. 73447. Danny Rivera, on the other
hand, was released from custody.
On 17 May 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed, with this
Court on behalf of Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera. It was alleged
therein that Vicky Ocaya was illegally arrested and detained, and
denied the right to a preliminary investigation.
It would appear, however, that Vicky Ocaya was arrested
in flagranti delicto so that her arrest without a warrant is justified.
No preliminary investigation was conducted because she was
24
V
The petitioners Vicky Ocaya, Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon Casiple,
and Amelia Roque claim that the firearms, ammunition and
subversive documents alleged to have been found in their
possession when they were arrested, did not belong to them, but
were "planted" by the military agents to justify their illegal arrest.
The petitioners, however, have not introduced any evidence to
support their aforesaid claim. On the other hand, no evil motive or
ill-will on the part of the arresting officers that would cause the said
arresting officers in these cases to accuse the petitioners falsely,
has been shown. Besides, the arresting officers in these cases do
not appear to be seekers of glory and bounty hunters for, as
counsel for the petitioners Anonuevo and Casiple say, "there is
absolutely nothing in the evidence submitted during the inquest
that petitioners are on the 'AFP Order of Battle with a reward of
P150,000.00 each on their heads.'" 6 On the other hand, as pointed
out by the Solicitor General, the arrest of the petitioners is not a
product of a witch hunt or a fishing expedition, but the result of an
in-depth surveillance of NPA safehouses pointed to by no less than
former comrades of the petitioners in the rebel movement.
The Solicitor General, in his Consolidated Memorandum, aptly
observes:
. . . . To reiterate, the focal point in the case of petitioners Roque,
Buenaobra, Anonuevo and Casiple, was the lawful search and
seizure conducted by the military at the residence of Renato
Constantino at Villaluz Compound, Molave St., Marikina Heights,
Marikina, Metro Manila. The raid at Constantino's residence, was
not a witch hunting or fishing expedition on the part of the military.
It was a result of an in-depth military surveillance coupled with the
leads provided by former members of the underground subversive
25
sister, Maria Paz Lalic, be allowed to accompany him, but the men
did not accede to his request and hurriedly sped away.
26
27
information has been filed. 14The petitioners claim that the said
ruling, which was handed down during the past dictatorial regime
to enforce and strengthen said regime, has no place under the
present democratic dispensation and collides with the basic,
fundamental, and constitutional rights of the people. Petitioners
point out that the said doctrine makes possible the arrest and
detention of innocent persons despite lack of evidence against
them, and, most often, it is only after a petition for habeas
corpus is filed before the court that the military authorities file the
criminal information in the courts of law to be able to hide behind
the protective mantle of the said doctrine. This, petitioners assert,
stands as an obstacle to the freedom and liberty of the people and
permits lawless and arbitrary State action.
We find, however, no compelling reason to abandon the said
doctrine. It is based upon express provision of the Rules of Court
and the exigencies served by the law. The fears expressed by the
petitioners are not really unremediable. As the Court sees it, reexamination or reappraisal, with a view to its abandonment, of the
Ilagan case doctrine is not the answer. The answer and the better
practice would be, not to limit the function of thehabeas corpus to a
mere inquiry as to whether or not the court which issued the
process, judgment or order of commitment or before whom the
detained person is charged, had jurisdiction or not to issue the
process, judgment or order or to take cognizance of the case, but
rather, as the Court itself states in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, 15 "in all
petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase
and aspect of petitioner's detention-from the moment petition was
taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the
merits of the petition;" and "only after such a scrutiny can the court
satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in
fact been satisfied." This is exactly what the Court has done in the
petitions at bar. This is what should henceforth be done in all future
cases of habeas corpus. In Short, all cases involving deprivation of
individual liberty should be promptly brought to the courts for their
immediate scrutiny and disposition.
28
29
(1) chopa of rice and one peso (P1.00) per month, as his
contribution to the NPA TSN, page 5, Hearing-October 14, 1982).
Immediately, upon receipt of said information, a joint team of PCINP units, composed of fifteen (15) members, headed by Captain
Melchesideck Bargio, (PC), on the following day, May 13, 1982, was
dispatched at Tiguman; Davao del Sur, to arrest accused Ruben
Burgos. The team left the headquarter at 1:30 P.M., and arrived at
Tiguman, at more or less 2:00 o'clock PM where through the help of
Pedro Burgos, brother of accused, the team was able to locate
accused, who was plowing his field. (TSN, pages 6-7, HearingOctober 14, 1982).
Right in the house of accused, the latter was caned by the team
and Pat. Bioco asked accused about his firearm, as reported by
Cesar Masamlok. At first accused denied possession of said firearm
but later, upon question profounded by Sgt. Alejandro Buncalan
30
with the wife of the accused, the latter pointed to a place below
their house where a gun was buried in the ground. (TSN, page 8,
Pat. Bioco then verified the place pointed by accused's wife and
Oscar Gomez and Antonio Burgos, went to his house at about 5:00
dug the grounds, after which he recovered the firearm, Caliber .38
Masamlok, their purpose was to ask rice and one (1) peso from him,
Then Sgt. Taroy accordingly verified beneath said cogon grass and
Because of the threat to his life and family, Cesar Masamlok joined
pulled gut from his waistline a .38 caliber revolver which Masamlok
really saw, being only about two (2) meters away from accused,
Mindanao, March and April 1981 issue, consisting of ten (10) pages,
Exhibit "A" for the prosecution. (TSN, pages 72, 73, and 74,
Hearing-January 4, 1983).
Accused, when confronted with the firearm Exhibit "A", after its
by his father, Matuguil Masamlok, Isabel Ilan and Ayok Ides went to
movement, an example was the killing of the late Mayor Llanos and
Barangay Captain of Tienda Aplaya Digos, Davao del Sur. (TSN,
The first speaker was accused Ruben Burgos, who said very
31
Exh. exhibits "B", "C", and "D" for the prosecution. (TSN, pages 75,
outside the cubicle of Fiscal Lovitos while waiting for the accused.
(TSN, pages 36-40, nearing November 15, 1982)
32
pungent water poured in his body and over his private parts,
making his entire body, particularly his penis and testicle, terribly
accordingly overruled.
All along, he was investigated to obtain his admission, The process
On the other hand, the defendant-appellant's version of the case
his senses,
Finally on May 15, 1982, after undergoing the same torture and
salvaged, and no longer able to bear any further the pain and
agony, accused admitted ownership of subject firearm.
his refusal accused was mauled, hitting him on the left and right
confronted with subject firearm, Exhibit "A", for him to admit and
Accused said, his eyes were covered with wet black cloth with
33
Identify and was able to obtain his admission of the subject firearm,
activities, and also to support his denial to the truth of his alleged
activities but they were released and were not formally charged in
Court because they publicly took their oath of allegiance with the
the accused nor able to talk with him. (TSN, pages 118- 121,
Urbana Burgos, was presented and who testified that the subject
firearm was left in their house by Cesar Masamlok and one Pedipol
on May 10, 1982. It was night time, when the two left the gun,
She, however, admitted being familiar with one Oscar Gomez, and
alleging that it was not in order, and that they will leave it behind,
that she was personally charged with subversion in the Office of the
temporarily for them to claim it later. They were the ones who
buried it. She said, her husband, the accused, was not in their
Sur, but said charge was dismissed without reaching the Court. She
house at that time and that she did not inform him about said
likewise stated that her son, Rogelio Arellano, was likewise charged
firearm neither did she report the matter to the authorities, for fear
for subversion filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Digos, Davao del
of the life of her husband. (TSN, page 24, November 22, 1983)
34
The records of the case disclose that when the police authorities
went to the house of Ruben Burgos for the purpose of arresting him
allegedly recruited him to join the New People's Army (NPA), they
did not have any warrant of arrest or search warrant with them
(TSN, p. 25, October 14, 1982; and TSN, p. 61, November 15,
1982).
TO BE LAWFUL.
Was the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful? Were the search of his
Does the evidence sustaining the crime charged meet the test of
35
refuge, his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of
committed it;
around him. There the state, however powerful, does not as such
have access except under the circumstances above noted, for in
which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and
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."
If the arrest is valid, the consequent search and seizure of the
firearm and the alleged subversive documents would become an
incident to a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126, Section 12,
which states:
A person charged with an offense may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of the offense.
The conclusions reached by the trial court are erroneous.
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
36
must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also
crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof.
that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for
of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and
liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving
of full protection.
The Solicitor General is of the persuasion that the arrest may still
that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the
37
The basis for the action taken by the arresting officer was the
arrest becomes even more clear. The arrest of the accused while he
was plowing his field is illegal. The arrest being unlawful, the search
and seizure which transpired afterwards could not likewise be
deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest.
Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver, or that consent
was given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed
to object. To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right
exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said
Q As a matter of fact, Burgos was not present in his house when you went
there?
A But he was twenty meters away from his house.
affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in
the position of either contesting an officer's authority by force, or
A Yes Sir.
38
39
40
41
accused Juan Tuvera, Sr., a barrio captain, with the aid of some
other private persons, namely Juan Tuvera, Jr., Bertillo Bataoil and
one Dianong, maltreated one Armando Valdez by hitting with butts
of their guns and fists blows and immediately thereafter, without
legal grounds, with deliberate intent to deprive said Armando
Valdez of his constitutional liberty, accused Barrio captain Juan
Tuvera, Sr., Cpl. Tomas Mendoza and Pat. Rodolfo Mangsat,
members of the police force of Mangsat, Pangasinan conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lodge and lock said Armando
Valdez inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about
eleven (11) hours. (Emphasis supplied.)
CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 124 of the R.P.C.
Dagupan City, October 12, 1972.
(SGD.) VICENTE C. CALDONA
Assistant Provincial Fiscal
All the accused, including respondent Juan Tuvera, Sr., were
arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
On April 4, 1973, Tuvera filed a motion to quash the information on
the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and
that the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to
support the filing of the information. Petitioner Assistant Provincial
Fiscal Ramon S. Milo filed an opposition thereto.
Finding that respondent Juan Tuvera, Sr. was not a public officer
who can be charged with Arbitrary Detention, respondent Judge
Angelito C. Salanga granted the motion to quash in an order dated
April 25, 1973.
Hence, this petition.
That on or about the 21st day of April 1973, at around 10:00 o'clock
in the evening, in barrio Baguinay, Manaoag, Pangasinan,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
42
ordered Valdez arrested, it was not he who detained and jailed him
because he has no such authority vested in him as a mere Barrio
Captain of Barrio Baguinay, Manaoag, Pangasinan. 5
In line with the above finding of respondent Judge Salanga, private
respondent Tuvera asserts that the motion to quash was properly
sustained for the following reasons: (1) That he did not have the
authority to make arrest, nor jail and detain petitioner Valdez as a
mere barrio captain;6 (2) That he is neither a peace officer nor a
policeman,7(3) That he was not a public official;8 (4) That he had
nothing to do with the detention of petitioner Valdez; 9 (5) That he is
not connected directly or indirectly in the administration of the
Manaoag Police Force;10 (6) That barrio captains on April 21, 1972
were not yet considered as persons in authority and that it was only
upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 299 that Barrio
Captain and Heads of Barangays were decreed among those who
are persons in authority;11 and that the proper charge was Illegal
Detention and Not Arbitrary Detention.12
We disagree.
Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed into law, barrio
lieutenants (who were later named barrio captains and now
barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority. In
various cases, this Court deemed them as persons in authority, and
convicted them of Arbitrary Detention.
In U.S. vs. Braganza,13 Martin Salibio, a barrio lieutenant, and
Hilario Braganza, a municipal councilor, arrested Father Feliciano
Gomez while he was in his church. They made him pass through
the door of the vestry and afterwards took him to the municipal
building. There, they told him that he was under arrest. The priest
had not committed any crime. The two public officials were
convicted of Arbitrary Detention.14
In U.S. vs. Gellada,15 Geronimo Gellada, a barrio lieutenant, with the
help of Filoteo Soliman, bound and tied his houseboy Sixto
Gentugas with a rope at around 6:00 p.m. and delivered him to the
43
justice of the peace. Sixto was detained during the whole night and
until 9:00 a.m. of the next day when he was ordered released by
the justice of the peace because he had not committed any crime,
Gellada was convicted of Arbitrary Detention.16
Under Republic Act No. 3590, otherwise known as The Revised
Barrio Charter, the powers and duties of a barrio captain include
the following: to look after the maintenance of public order in the
barrio and to assist the municipal mayor and the municipal
councilor in charge of the district in the performance of their duties
in such barrio;17 to look after the general welfare of the barrio;18 to
enforce all laws and ordinances which are operative within the
barrio;19 and to organize and lead an emergency group whenever
the same may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and
order within the barrio.20
In his treatise on Barrio Government Law and Administration,
Professor Jose M. Aruego has this to say about the abovementioned powers and duties of a Barrio Captain, to wit:
"Upon the barrio captain depends in the main the maintenance of
public order in the barrio. For public disorder therein, inevitably
people blame him.
"In the event that there be a disturbing act to said public order or a
threat to disturb public order, what can the barrio captain do?
Understandably, he first resorts to peaceful measures. He may take
preventive measures like placing the offenders under surveillance
and persuading them, where possible, to behave well, but when
necessary, he may subject them to the full force of law.
"He is a peace officer in the barrio considered under the law as a
person in authority. As such, he may make arrest and detain
persons within legal limits.21 (Emphasis supplied.)
One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary
Detention. It is accepted that other public officers like judges and
mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this
44
45
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts
that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law
on March 20, 1962, said petitioners filed with the Supreme Court
this original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and
injunction, and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present
case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining
Respondents-Prosecutors, their agents and /or representatives from
using the effects seized as aforementioned or any copies thereof, in
the deportation cases already adverted to, and that, in due course,
thereafter, decision be rendered quashing the contested search
warrants and declaring the same null and void, and commanding
the respondents, their agents or representatives to return to
petitioners herein, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 67, of the
Rules of Court, the documents, papers, things and cash moneys
seized or confiscated under the search warrants in question.
accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any,
were cured by petitioners' consent; and (3) that, in any event, the
Code."
Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null and void,
and seizures.
June 29, 1962, the writ was partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as
the papers, documents and things seized from the offices of the
46
Thus, the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged
authority of the warrants in question may be split into two (2) major
groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the
aforementioned corporations, and (b) those found and seized in the
residences of petitioners herein.
As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein
have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested
warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the
simple reason that said corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein
petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the
interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the
offices they hold therein may be.8 Indeed, it is well settled that the
legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose
9
10
documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises
petitioners herein.
11
under the authority thereof, are valid or not, and (2) if the answer
to the preceding question is in the negative, whether said
47
petitioners herein.1wph1.t
the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of
probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of
effected upon the authority there of are null and void. In this
the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts
our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and
the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of
the whims caprice or passion of peace officers. This is precisely the
evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision above
quoted to outlaw the so-called general warrants. It is not difficult
to imagine what would happen, in times of keen political strife,
when the party in power feels that the minority is likely to wrest it,
even though by legal means.
Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in
connection with the disputed search warrants, that this Court
deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of
Court
14
Court
15
that "a search warrant shall not issue but upon probable
48
law rule, that the criminal should not be allowed to go free merely
that "no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific
offense."
16
17
In fact, over thirty (30) years before, the Federal Supreme Court
49
20
After reviewing
Ohio (supra.):
50
prosecuting agents of the majority, one must not lose sight of the
of the party for whose benefit the illegality had been committed.
21
of
51
Upon the other hand, we are not satisfied that the allegations of
said petitions said motion for reconsideration, and the contents of
the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in
support of said motion, have sufficiently established the facts or
conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the
petitioners; to warrant application of the views therein expressed,
should we agree thereto. At any rate, we do not deem it necessary
to express our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter
open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.
We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case
must be, as it is hereby, abandoned; that the warrants for the
52
53
the past eleven fill years had taught them that everything in this
country, from release of public funds to release of detained persons
from custody, has become a matter of executive benevolence or
largesse
54
55
56
57
58