Umil v Ramos (1991)

Oct. 3, 1991
Per Curiam
Recit Ready Version:
Parties: (6 separate petitions)
Note: Here, the ones petitioning/applying for HC are also the petitioners,
except where the parties are parenthesized.
In the Matter of the Petitions for Habeas Corpus of:
1.

2.
3.

Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural and Renato Villanueva (Manolita Umil v. Nicanor Dural v. Fidel
V. Ramos, Maj. General Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. Ramon Montano, and Brig. Gen. Alexander
Roque);
Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra v. De Villa and Montano
Atty. Domingo D. Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, v . Ramos, and other Officers;

In the Matter of the Applications for Habeas Corpus of:

4.
5.
6.

Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera (Virgilio Ocaya v Brig. Gen. Aguirre, Col. Hercules Cataluna
and Col. Nestor Mariano)
Deogracias Espiritu v. Brig. Gen. Alfredo Lim, Col. Reyes
Narciso B. Nazareno (Alfredo Nazareno v. Station Commander of the Muntinlupa Pol. Station,
and some Police Sgts.

How it got to the Supreme Court:

The petitioners in all these cases filed motions for reconsideration of the Courts
decision of July 9, 1990 (digested under no. 177), which dismissed all the petitions.
Procedural Issues/held/Ratio:
Essentially, WON the warrantless arrests carried out in all these cases were
valid. (Yes)
All of the cases here are petitions for habeas corpus after those detained were
arrested for various continuing offenses, such as rebellion or inciting to sedition.
The court held that although they were not actually performing the acts
constituting these offenses, the nature of these offenses as continuing ones meant
that an arrest, including others, in the hospital after a report that the patient
involved was a member of the CPP-NPA was still an arrest in flagrante delicto.
Thus, the subsequent detentions were not subject to habeas corpus, because the
detentions were not illegal.
Note: Despite the consolidation of these cases, the Court decided to
discuss them all separately, as I will likewise do.
The court took the occasion to clarify that the 1990 decision did not rule that mere
suspicion that one is a Communist Party (CPP) or New Peoples Army is a valid
ground for warrantless arrest. Also, that decision merely applied long existing laws

to the factual situations in the petitions, such as those outlawing the CPP and other
similar organizations. If these laws were found to be no longer be in consonance
with the sentiment of the people, it is the Congress, not the court, that should
repeal them.
These are petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, which exists as a
speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. Thus,
the function of this special proceeding is to inquire into the legality of ones
detention, so if the detention is illegal, the detainee may be released.
In the 1990 decision, the SC looked into whether the questioned arrests in each of
the petitions were made in accordance with law. If they were so made, the
detentions would also be lawful.
As a general rule, no peace officer or person has the power to arrest anyone
without a warrant of arrest. Some exceptions to this rule are those provided for
under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
General Issue: WON the arrests were valid (Yes)
1. PHC (petition for habeas corpus) of Rolando Dural and Roberto Umil
Facts:
On Feb. 1, 1988, military men were dispatched to St. Agnes Hospital in Quezon
City, to verify a confidential information received by their office that a sparrow
man (NPA member) had been admitted to the hospital with a gunshot would. The
Information alleged that the wounded man was one of 5 sparrows who murdered 2
Capcom mobile patrolmen at noon the day before, and that his name was listed by
the hospital as Ronnie Javellon, of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Binan,
Laguna.
Dural was identified as the sparrow men. He was thus arrested, without warrant,
for being a member of the New Peoples Army, an outlawed organization,
membership of which is penalized by law. He was also arrested for subversion.
Ratio:
The arrest for being a member of the NPA and for subversion was valid, because
that organizations ideology includes armed struggle for the overthrow of
organized government. As held in Garcia v. Enrile, the crimes of insurrection,
rebellion and subversion, as well as conspiracy or proposal to commit them, and
other crimes and offenses committed in connection with them, are all in the nature
of continuing offenses.
Dural, given another opportunity, would have shot other policemen anywhere as
agents of organized government. In this sense, subversion was perceived as a

continuing offense. Unlike common offenses, like adultery, murder and arson,
which end upon their commission, subversion and rebellion are anchored on an
ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and
violence until the overriding objective of overthrowing organized government is
attained.
Further, the arrest was based on probable cause. The confidential information
received by the arresting officers, was deemed reasonable and with cause, as it
was based on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to engender a
belief that an NPA member was truly in the hospital.
Specifically, the facts are that:
1. The day before, 2 Capcom soldiers were killed by 5 sparrows, including
Dural, in Bagong Bario, Caloocan.
2. A wounded person listed as Ronnie Javellon was actually being treated in
the hospital.
3. Ronnie Javellon and his address were fictitious; he was in fact Rolando
Dural.
The confidential information received merited their immediate action, and in fact
turned out to be true. Even the petitioners acknowledged that the information was
probably sent by the attending doctor and hospital management in compliance
with the directives of law, and thus, probably from reliable sources.
It may also be said that the arrest of Dural falls under paragraph (b), Sec. 5, R113.
This paragraph requires 2 conditions for a valid warrantless arrest: (1) the person
to be arrested has just committed an offense, and (2) the arresting peace officer or
private person has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be
arrested is the one who committed the offense. This personal knowledge must be
based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion.
Grounds of suspicion are reasonable, when in the absence of actual belief of the
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
the offence, is based on actual facts, supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested. Thus, the reasonable suspicions must be founded on good cause, coupled
with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
Here, the peace officers who arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the
same in good faith, as law enforcers are presumed to regularly perform their
official duties. The officers did not appear to be ill-motivated in arresting Dural.
The arrest, therefore, was valid.
Parenthetically, an information was filed against Dural for double murder with
assault. He was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

2. Amelia Roque, Wilfredo Buenaobra, Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon

Casiple and Vicky Ocaya
Facts:
Roque, Anonuevo, Buenaobra, Casiple and Ocaya were searched pursuant to
search warrants and were found with unlicensed firearms, explosives, and
ammunition on their persons. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, they were
arrested without warrant; informations were subsequently filed against them.
The arrests were made upon information given by a former NPA member to
military agents regarding the house of Renato Constantino in the Villaluz
Compound in Marikina. The house was used as a safehouse for CPP-NPA members.
After surveillance and pursuant to a search warrant duly issued by court, a search
was conducted on the house. Renato Constantino could not produce any permits to
possess the firearms, ammo or equipment, and admitted he was a ranking member
of the CPP.
Buenaobra arrived at the safehouse on Aug. 12, 1988, and admitted he was an NPA
courier, carrying letter to Constantino and other NPA members. As a result of
Buenaobras arrest, Roque was arrested because she had in her possession
subversive documents and live ammo, which she admitted belonged to her.
Anonuevo and Casiple were arrested when they arrived at the safehouse on Aug.
13, 1988, and were found to have subversive documents and loaded guns in their
possession without licenses for the firearms.
Ocaya was arrested at the house of Benito Tiamzon, believed to be the head of the
CPP-NPA, and whose house was subject of a duly issued search warrant. Ocaya was
arrested without warrant when Phil. Constabulary Intelligence and Investigation
agents found ammunition and subversive documents in her car.
Ratio:
In all these cases, the reason that compelled the military agents to make the
arrests was information given to the military agents that 2 safehouses, one owned
by Constantino, and another owned by Tiamzon, were being used by the NPA for
their operations.
When the arrests wre made, the ff. circumstances confirmed the belief of the
military agents that the information they had received was true and the persons to
be arrested were probably guilty of the commission of certain crimes:
1. A search warrant was issued to effect the search of the Constantine
safehosue.

2. That Constantine/Constantino1 was present in the house, and admitted to

being a ranking member of the NPA.
3. At the time of the arrests, all the accuse had in their possession unlicensed
firearms, ammunition, and subversive documents. They also admitted
ownership thereof as well as membership in the NPA. The latter was
confirmed by their former comrades after arrest.
As in the case of Dural, the warrantless arrests do not appear to be ill-motivated or
irregularly performed.
In light of all these circumstances, the arrests were prudent. It could not have
been better had the military agents not acted at all. That would have been neglect
of duty, and cause for disciplinary action against the peace officers involved. It is
their duty to investigate the acts constituting the alleged violation of the law and to
prosecute and secure the punishment therefore.
An arrest is in the nature of an administrative nature. The power to arrest without
warrant is without limitation as long as the legal requirements are met.
3. Deogracias Espiritu
Facts:
On Nov. 23, 1988, Espiritu was arrested without warrant at the corner of
Magsaysay Boulevard and Velencia Street in Sta. Mesa, Manila. He was speaking
at a gathering of drivers and sympathizers, where, among other things, he said.
Bukas tuloy ang welga natinhanggang sa magkagulo na.

He also called for a nationwide strike at a press conference held at the National
Press Club. He was then arrested, not for subversion, or for any continuing
offense, but for inciting to sedition
Ratio:
While opinions differ as to whether such speech is protected by the free speech
clause of the Constitution or is, indeed, inciting to sedition, the authority of the
peace officers to make the arrest without warrant, after the words were uttered is
another matter.
It is admittedly difficult to balance authority and freedom, but in this case, the SC
tilted the scale in favor of authority only for arrest, not for conviction.
Supervening events, furthermore, have made this petition moot and academic. His
case was dismissed for failure of the peace officers to appear at the arraignment.
4. Narciso Nazareno
1 They keep switching between these 2.

Facts:
In the morning of Dec. 14, 1988, Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men in
Alabang. On Dec. 28, 1988, Ramil Regala, one of the suspects in the killing, was
arrested.
Regala then pointed to Narciso Nazareno as one of his companions during the
killing of Bunye. 2 hours later, Nazareno was also arrested without warrant.
Ratio:
Although there was a lapse of 14 days between Bunyes death and his arrest, it was
only on the 28th that authorities came to know that Nazareno was probably one of
those guilty of killing Bunye; thus, the arrest had to be made promptly, even
without warrant.
As proof of the strength of evidence against Nazareno, his motions to post bail and
for habeas corpus were dismissed.
Ratio for both Espiritu and Nazareno (confusing, I know):
Shortly after the arrests of both Espiritu and Nazareno, the corresponding
informations were filed in court. The arrests were based on probable cause and
supported by factual circumstances, and were therefore valid.
(Annoying additional issues unrelated to arrest)
(on admissibility of extrajudicial admissions)
Buenaobra and Roques admission that they were NPA couriers, and owner of
unlicensed firearms, ammunition, and subversive documents, respectively,
strengthened the courts perception that the grounds upon which the officers made
their arrests were supported by probable cause. Mere acceptance of these
admissions is not to rule that the arrested were already guilty of the offenses upon
which their arrests were predicated. The task of determining guilt of innocence is
not properly taken on in a petition for habeas corpus; it is to be done at trial.
(on the abandonment of the doctrines in Garcia v. Enrile that subversion is a
continuing offense and Ilagan v. Enrile that a writ of habeas corpus is no longer
available after criminal information is filed against the person detained and an
arrest warrant or a commitment order is issued by the court where the said
information has been filed.)
No need to do this, especially in light of national security issues. What is important
is that every arrest without warrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus
proceeding.
Motions for Reconsideration denied.