Case Digest Prepared by: Sheila

Umil v. Ramos
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

Court En Banc Date July 9, 1990

Citation G.R. No. 81567, 84581-82, 84583-841 83162, 85727, 86332 Ponente Per Curiam

Petitioner IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL,
ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO VILLANUEVA. MANOLITA O. UMIL, and NICANOR P.
DURAL, FELICITAS V. SESE

Respondent FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN. RAMON MONTANO,
BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE

Doctrine

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule
112, Section 7.
***
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 act of holding firearms and subversive documents are acts that are in furtherance of the purpose of
rebellion.

Case Summary [This is Umil Summary only]

7 cases of people arrested for the crimes of subversion, inciting sedition, insurrection or rebellion, or
proposal to commit such crimes. They were all arrested without warrants in lieu of their crimes being
continuing crimes, and/or the presence of information already filed against them.

After a shoot-out encounter with the NPA Sparrow Unit the day before, RIOU-CAPCOM went to arrest Dural
in a hospital where he was being treated for a gunshot wound. He was arrested and held in custody. He then
filed a petition for habeas corpus, with two other accused, but was denied. Umil and Villanueva posted bail.

The Court held that the warrantless arrest was valid because subversion is a continuing crime, and the
accused may be arrested at any time, even if he is not currently performing an overt act related to
subversion. Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization.
 FACTS
Case 1. Ronaldo Dural Case
 [January 31, 1988; Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City] An encounter between soldiers of the Regional
Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) and the NPA Sparrow Unit. A
sparrow gunman went on top of the hood of a CAPCOM mobile patrol car and fired 2 soldiers seated
inside.
 [February 1, 1988, Quezon City] CAPCOM received information about a member of the NPA Sparrow
Unit (liquidation squad) being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City. Rolando Dural, who put a fake name Ronnie Javelon. He was identified by
eyewitnesses.
 [February 6, 1988] Petition for habeas corpus was filed on the behalf of Umil, Dural, and Villanueva.
 [February 15, 1988, RTC of Caloocan City] Case was filed. It included another defendant, an
unidentified Bernardo Itucal, Jr.
 [February 26, 1988] Umil and Villanueva posted bail.

ISSUE # 1 HELD

WON Dural’s arrest was valid YES

RATIO
 He was arrested for subversion due to being a NPA member, which is a continuing crime. Thus, his
arrest is valid without a warrant is valid even if he was arrested the day after. His case was
decided on August 17, 1988 as guilty for double murder. Habeas corpus is not available to him
anymore.
 In this case, whatever may be said about the manner of his arrest, the fact remains that the defendant
was actually in court in the custody of the law on March 29, when a complaint sufficient in form and
substance was read to him. To this he pleaded not guilty.
 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.
 Habeas corpus was denied for being moot and academic because Dural has been convicted and is
already serving sentence.

Case 2. Amelia Roque [Buenaobra and Roque] Case

 [June 27, 1988] A NPA whistleblower pointed to several houses where NPA operation occur in Metro
Manila, one of which is the house of Renato Constantino in Marikina Heights, Marikina, which is used
as a safehouse of the National United Front Commission (NUFC) of the CPP-NPA.
 [August 12, 1988] Search and seizure warrant for the Constantino house was released. Several live
ammunitions, a rifle, a gun, two hand grenades, a power supple, an antennae, speaker cord, and
subversive documents were taken. Constantino had no defense as to why he had these.
 [August 12, 1988, 8PM] Wilfredo Buenaobra arrived at the house to give letters to Constantino from
other NPA members. Among the letters is one containing a written but jumbled telephone number of
Florida Roque, sister of Amelia Roque
 [August 13, 1988, 11AM, 69 Geronimo St., Caloocan City] Soldiers went to Roque’s house and
searched it under the permission of other occupants and the barangay captain. Several ammunitions, a
2
 rifle, and a grenade were found. Amelia admitted that the subversive documents belonged to her and
that the other occupants were innocent.
 [August 15, 1988] Roque was charged with violation of PD1866 in Caloocan City RTC. Buenaobra was
also charged with Anti-Subversion Act.
 [August 24, 1988] Roque filed a petition for habeas corpus for Roque and Buenaobra. Buenaobra said
he wanted to stay in Camp Crame. His petition was mooted.
 Their arrest was declared justified because they are members of the NUFC-CPP. Roque’s arrest was
further justified by the seized unlicensed ammunitions and documents during the search.
 Arrest was valid based on the same reasons as Dural’s.

Case 3. Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple Case

 The two were apprehended at the house of Renato Constantino with a bag of subversive materials, and
both carried ammunitions and firearms.
 [August 13, 1988, 7:30PM] While the Constantino house was still under surveillance, the two came with
bulging objects around their waist. They were frisked and their guns and subversive documents were
found and confiscated. They could not show any license.
 They were identified by previously surrendered CPP members at the PC Stockade.
 [August 24, 1988] Petition for habeas corpus was filed for the two. It was granted on the 30th and they
were heard. The hearing showed no merit in their contentions.
 Petitioners assert that the investigation done was null and void for want of preliminary investigation.

ISSUE # 3 HELD

WON Petitioners are entitled to a preliminary investigation. NO

RATIO
 [Sec. 7, Rule 112. When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant] However, before the filing of such
complaint or information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation by a proper
officer in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a
lawyer, a responsible person of his choice.
 They refused to sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of RPC, nor did they ask for preliminary
investigations. They now cannot claim they have been deprived of their constitutional right to due
process.

Case 4. Vicky Ocaya Case

 [May 12, 1988, Marikina Green Heights] Ocaya was arrested when she was found with unlicensed
firearms and subversive documents after a search of Benito Tiamson’s house was conducted. She was
in a car with Danny Rivers when the items were found in her car.
 [May 17, 1988] Ocaya filed for habeas corpus but was rejected on the same grounds as being found in
flagrante delicto. She refused to waive the provisions of Article 125, thus, preliminary investigation
cannot be granted.
 Arrest was valid for the same reason as Case 1 and 3.

Case 5. Ocaya, Anonuevo, Casiple, and Roque Case

3
  Petitioners claimed that the document and firearms found were planted by the military. However, no
evidence was introduced, and the arresting officers were said to have no evil motive or intent.
 The SolGen assert that 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 organizations.
 The accused arrived at the Constantino residence <24 hours after the Constantino and Buenaobra
arrest. Their contact with the arrested persons and the leads that the arrested persons gave that
pointed to them are the circumstances that led the military authorities to act reasonably by arresting the
accused.
 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.
 Petition denied for lack of merit.

Case 6. Deogracias Espiritu

 Petitioner is the General Secretary of the Pinagkaisahang Samahan ng Tsuper at Operators
Nationwide (PISTON), an association of drivers and operators of public service vehicles in the
Philippines, organized for their mutual aid and protection.
 [November 23, 1988, 5AM, Sta. Mesa, Manila] He was awoken by his sister saying someone wants to
hire his jeep. He was arrested then and there. He was put before Lim who order his arrest and
detention for the charge of Inciting to Sedition. The claim is that he incited his fellow jeepney drivers
to rally “hanggang sa magkagulo na”
 He was arrested for violation of Art. 142 of the RPC. The arrest of the petitioner without a warrant
was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 113, Sec. 5(b) of the Rules of Court and that the
petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid information filed with the competent court, he may not be
released on habeas corpus.
 Petition was dismissed but his bail was lowered from P60,000 to P10,000.

Case 7. Narciso Nazareno Case

 [December 14, 1988] Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men near the corner of T. Molina and
Mendiola Streets in Alabang.
 Ramil Regala was arrested by the police on 28 December 1988. Upon questioning, Regala pointed to
Narciso Nazareno as one of his companions in the killing. Nazareno was arrested without
warrant.
 [January 3, 1988] Nazareno, Regala and 2 others were charged with Bunye’s death.
 13 January 1989, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with this Court on behalf of Narciso Nazareno.
It was issued but was denied because he was detained by reason of an information filed against him. It
also took cognizance that his previous bail was denied.
 Narciso Nazareno was in the custody of the respondents by reason of an information filed against him
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila which had taken cognizance of said case and
had, in fact, denied the motion for bail filed by said Narciso Nazareno (presumably because of the
strength of the evidence against him).
 "The obligation of an agent of authority to make an arrest by reason of a crime, does not presuppose
as a necessary requisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitable existence of a crime. For the
detention to be perfectly legal, it is sufficient that the agent or person in authority making the
arrest has reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act having the
characteristics of a crime and that the same grounds exist to believe that the person sought to
4
 be detained participated therein."
 The arrest was valid and pursuant to Sec. 5(b), Rule 113.

Principle in Question
 The rule is, that if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
under process issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue
the process or make the order, or if such person is charged before any court, the writ of habeas
corpus will not be allowed. [Section 4, Rule 102, Rules of Court]
 A writ of habeas corpus is no longer available after an information is filed against the person
detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment is issued by the court where said
information has been filed.
 The answer and the better practice would be, not to limit the function of habeas 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,
"in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner's
detention — from the moment petitioner 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."

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED, except thatin G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the bail
bond for petitioner's provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from P60,000.00 to P10,000.00. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Separate Opinions
Cruz, J., dissenting and concurring
 The doctrine that subversion is a continuing crime to justify the arrest without warrant of any person at
any time as long as the authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion of the
offence is a dangerous doctrine. Anyone can be arrested when he is doing the most innocent acts.
 Even if it be argued that the military should be given every support in our fight against subversion, I
maintain that that fight must be waged honorably, in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

Sarmiento, J., dissenting

 Habeas corpus lies in all eight cases.

1. Ronaldo Dural’s Case

○ Majority says Dural was arrested for subversion and for being a member of the NPA. The
charge to Dural was Double Murder with Assault upon Agents of Authority. He should have
been charged with Subversion if he was arrested for that.
○ Warrantless arrest should not be possible for subversion because he was not arrested while in
the act of shooting. Subversion requires the element of overt acts affiliating oneself with the
CPP. He could not have been arrested at the time when he was performing overt acts.
○ Valid warrantless arrest is present if accused was caught in flagrante delicto or if officer had
personal knowledge of guilt. Dural was not caught in the act, and he was arrested by the officers
based on hearsay.
○ The rule on warrantless arrest must be exercised only in most urgent cases. This precedent is
the military taking the law in its hands.
5
 ○ Habeas corpus may be granted upon a judgment already final.
2. Wilfredo Buenaobra and Amelia Roque Case
o Habeas corpus was deemed moot and academic because they manifested their intent to stay in
the PC-INP stockade. This is not reason to moot habeas corpus.
o The couple’s admission that they were officials of the CPP is a naked contention of the military
and was not controverted.
3. Anonuevo and Casiple Case
o The evidence found were also barren claims of the military. No decision from the trial court yet,
the SC should not preempt the trial court’s decision.
4. Vicky Ocaya Case
o No basis of guilt for illegal possession of firearms. This was a fishing expedition of the military
upon an unwary citizen.
5. Deogracias Espiritu Case
o Espiritu was sleeping when he was arrested. This was justified by stating that an information
was already filed. An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense
subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court. It is not an order to keep one under detention.
6. Narciso Nazareno Case
o The crime had long been committed prior to the arrest. It cannot be justified as a valid
warrantless arrest.

 The doctrine that subversion is a continuing crime should be abandoned because this was
implemented during the Martial Law and is repugnant to due process of law.
 None of the petitioners had been: (1) informed of their right to remain silent; and (2) to have competent
and independent counsel.
 The majority is denyinghabeas corpus on self-serving claims of the military that the petitioners (Dural,
Buenaobra, Roque, Añonuevo, and Casiple) are members of the Communist Party of the Philippines —
and that they have supposedly confessed to be in fact members of the outlawed organization. The
question of the validity of the evidence of the military should be questioned.