Umil v Ramos (1991)Oct. 3, 1991Per 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. 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);2. Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra v. De Villa and Montano3. Atty. Domingo D. Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, v . Ramos, and other Officers;In the Matter of the Applications for Habeas Corpus of:4. Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera (Virgilio Ocaya v Brig. Gen. Aguirre, Col. Hercules Cataluna and Col. Nestor Mariano)5. Deogracias Espiritu v. Brig. Gen. Alfredo Lim, Col. Reyes6. 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 UmilFacts: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 OcayaFacts: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/Constantino[footnoteRef:1] was present in the house, and admitted to being a ranking member of the NPA. [1: They keep switching between these 2.]

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 EspirituFacts: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 seditionRatio: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 NazarenoFacts: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.