UMIL V RAMOS (1990) PER CURIAM The main issue in this case is WON the arrests were valid

lid and WON the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to the petitioners The court here will decide each case based on the individual attending circumstances of all the accused These are 8 consolidated petitions for habeas corpus because the issues herein are similar RESPONDENTS The persons sought to be produced were all legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid informations hence a writ of HC cannot be used to set them free PETITIONERS Informations were null and void Detention is unlawful arrests made with no warrant no preliminary investigations conducted

COURT: arrests are LEGAL, circumstances do not warrant the release through habeas corpus Warrantless arrests are recognized by law ROC- Rule 113 - 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; xxxxx Evidence shows that persons arrested herein had all freshly committed or were actually committing an offense arrests justified and that they are detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court UMIL v RAMOS They were arrested in connection with the killing of 2 capcom soldiers Dural was captured and identified 1 day after the incident because he needed medical care FEB 6, 1988 petition for habeas corpus was filed with the court on behalf of Umil, Dural and Villanueva FEB 26, 1988 Umil and Villanueva posted bail before RTC Pasay where charges for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act they were released HC of Umil and Villanueva = moot and academic Dural was not arrested DURING the shooting nor was he arrested JUST AFTER arrested a DAY AFTER = seemingly unjustified BUT court said the Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA an outlawed subversive organization Subversion is a continuing offense = arrest without warrant is justified Furthermore evidence shows that the case against Dural was tried in court wherein they were found GUILTY = now serving sentence = HC no longer available

o o

ROQUE vs. DE VILLA They were found through a snitch (Ramos) who pointed to a certain house occupied by Constantino - used as a safehouse of the NUFC of the CPP-NPA where Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra were apprehended Buenaobra admitted that he was an NPA courier and he had with him letters to Constantino and other members Roque 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 frag grenade no permit Roque and Buenaobra were charged with violation of anti-subversion act BUENAOBRA - At the hearing manifested his desire to stay in Crame = Moot and academic ROQUES WARRANTLESS ARREST IS JUSTIFIED As officers and/or members of the NUFCCPP, their arrest, without warrant, was justified for the same reasons earlier stated vis-avis Rolando Dural additionally justified as she was, at the time of apprehension, in possession of ammunitions without license to possess them. Anonuevo vs. Ramos Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple are admittedly members of the standing committee of the NUFC apprehended in the house of Constatino they had a bag containing subversive materials, and both carried firearms and ammunition (no permit to carry) DURING COURSE OF HOUSE SURVEILANCE The military agents noticed bulging objects on their waist lines frisked found them to be loaded guns SC says Anonuevo and Casiple were carrying unlicensed firearms and ammo when arrested lawful warrantless arrest There is also no merit in the contention that the informations filed against them are null and void for want of a preliminary investigation. The filing of an information, without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, is sanctioned by the Rules. Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the ROC Anonuevo and Casiple, refused to sign a waiver of the provisions of RPC Art 125 (Delay in delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities) PETITIONERS DID NOT ASK FOR A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AFTER INFOS FIELD AGAINST THEM IN COURT Ocaya vs. Aguirre 12 May 1988, agents of the PC Intelligence and Investigation of the Rizal PC-INP Command, armed with a search warrant conducted a search of a house in Marikina occupied by Benito Tiamson, head of the CPP-NPA. During search 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 They were brought to the PC Headquarters for investigation.

o o

Ocaya could not produce any permit to possess the ammunition information filed for violation of PD 1866 in RTC Pasig Danny Rivera, on the other hand, was released from custody. SC held that Ocaya was arrested in flagranti delicto so that her arrest without a warrant is justified No preliminary investigation was conducted because she was arrested without a warrant and she refused to waive the provisions of Article 125 RPC WON EVIDENCE WAS PLANTED? NO. Ocaya, Anonuevo, Casiple and Roque claim that the firearms, ammo and subversive docs were all planted illegal arrest SC says NO EVIDENCE and no attributable evil motive or ill-will on part of arresting officers SOLGEN says arrests were part of in-depth surveillance of NPA safehouses pointed to by former NPA members NOT DISCUSSED IN CLASS Espiritu vs. Lim (Keywords: Piston officer, subversively sleeping) Nazareno vs. Station Commander (keywords: policemen were killed Sc said obviously the evidence against is obviously strong because an information was filed against the accused)

CONCLUSION All arrests herein stated were justified warrantless arrests based on the attending circumstances of each case and because there is legal and valid reasons as to why they are arrested and detained the writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted in their favor. GEN RULE: If a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, of if such person is charged before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed. o IN THIS CASE: they had jurisdiction because criminal charges were filed against all the accused

UMIL VS. RAMOS (GR 81567, SEPT. 8, 1990) Digest

FACTS: -The are separate motions filed by 8 different petitions seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision promulgated on 9 July 1990 (the decision, for brevity) which dismissed the petitions, with the following dispositive part: "WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED, except that in 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." - These petitions were consolidated because of the similarity of the issues being 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 explain why they should not be set off to liberty without

delay. - Respondents assert that the privilege of habeas corpus is not available to petitioners as they have been legally arrested and detained by virtue of valid information file in court against them. - Petitioners are members of NPA ISSUE: WON the petitioners are illegally arrested and detained.HELD:Arrest and detention is valid. RATIO: There can be no dispute that, as a general rule, no peace officer or person has the power or authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest, except in those cases express authorized by law. 6 The law expressly allowing arrests without warrant is found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which states the grounds upon which a valid arrest, without warrant, can be conducted. In the present cases, the focus is understandably on Section 5, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said Rule 113, which read: 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 he 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 arrest has committed it; The record of the cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed has freshly committed, or were actually committing an offense when apprehended so that their arrest without warrant is clearly justified , and that they are detained by virtue of valid information filed against them.

Umil vs. Ramos

FACTS: This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus assails the validity of the arrests and searches made by the military on the petitioners. The arrests relied on the confidential information that the authorities received. Except for one case where inciting to sedition was charged, the rest are charged with subversion for being a member of the New Peoples Army. RULING: The arrests were legal. Regarding the subversion cases, the arrests were legal since subversion is a form of a continuing crime together with rebellion, conspiracy or proposal to commit rebellion/subversion, and crimes committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith. On the inciting to sedition case, the arrest was legal since an information was filed prior to his arrest. Lastly, the arrests were not fishing expeditions but a result of an in-depth surveillance of NPA safe houses pinpointed by none other than members of the NPA. The right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by the offender as soon as possible. Otherwise, it would be considered as impliedly waived and the filing of information can proceed. This sort of irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid judgment upon a sufficient complaint and after

a trial free from error. DISSENT: (Sarmiento, J.) The confidential information was nothing but hearsay. The searches and arrests made were bereft of probable cause and that the petitioners were not caught in flagrante delicto or in any overt act. Utmost, the authorities was lucky in their fishing expeditions. 2. The Bill of Rights can only be invoked only against the state. People vs. Marti --Marti and his wife went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" carrying with them four (4) giftwrapped packages. Marti informed the owner that the packages simply contained books, cigars and gloves as gifts to his friends in Zurich and refused to allow the owner to examine and inspect the packages. However, before the delivery of the box to the Bureau of Customs, the owner's husband inspected the package and found marijuana which was later turned over to the NBI. A case was filed against Marti. Marti invoked his right against illegal searches and seizure. Held: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. Corollarily, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of the State would result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution