Rebellion as Continuing Offense: Umil vs. Ramos, G. R.

81567, July 9, 1990

This case it assails the validity of the arrests and searches made by the military on the petitioners;
that a mere suspicion that one is Communist Party or New People's Army member is a valid
ground for his arrest without warrant.
Facts:
Military agents received confidential information that a certain man, Ronnie Javellon, was being
treated in St. Agnes Hospital, for having gunshot wounds.
Later on, it was found out that Ronnie Javellon is a fictitious name and that his real name is
Rolando Dural (verified as one of the sparrows of the NPA), who was believed to be one of the
five NPA sparrows who recently murdered two Capcom mobile patrols. This allegation was
supported by the positive identification of him by the eyewitness as the one who murdered the 2
CAPCOM mobile patrols.
Rolando Dural was referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an information charging Rolando Dural
alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of "Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in
Authority."
Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with this Court on behalf
of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and Renato Villanueva, which was thereafter issued to them by
the court. However, Umil and Villanueva were released on Feb. 26, 1988, as they posted bail,
hence making their petition for habeas corpus moot and academic since it does not lie in favor of
an accused in a criminal case who has been released on bail.
As to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the
two (2) CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. Nor was he arrested just after the commission of the
said offense for his arrest came a day after the said shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest
without warrant is unjustified.

Issue: W/N WON the warrantless arrest is valid.

Ruling:
Yes. The claim of the petitioners that they were initially arrested illegally is, therefore, without
basis in law and in fact. Under the law, the crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature
of continuing crimes. 
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.

Hence, in the case at bar, Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples
Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the
arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an
offense when arrested.