Umil vs.

Ramos
Facts:
[GR 81567] On 1 February 1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the
Capital Command
(RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential 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. Upon verification, it was found that the
wounded person, who was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, is
actually Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation squad, responsible for the
killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day before, or on 31 January 1988, in Macanining
Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In view of this verification, Dural was
transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons.
While confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Dural was positively identified by
eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile
patrol car, and fired at the 2 CAPCOM soldiers seated inside the car identified as
T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato Manligot. As a consequence of this positive
identification, 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." (Criminal Case C-30112;
no bail recommended). On 15 February 1988, the information was amended to
include, as defendant, Bernardo Itucal, Jr. who, at the filing of the original
information, was still unidentified. Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for
habeas corpus was filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando
Dural, and Renato Villanueva. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on 9
February 1988 and Fidel V. Ramos, Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. Ramon
Montano, and Brig. Gen. Alexander Aguirre filed a Return of the Writ on 12 February
1988. Thereafter, the parties were heard on 15 February 1988. On 26 February
1988, however, Umil and Villanueva posted bail before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasay City where charges for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act had been filed
against them, and they were accordingly released.
Issue:
Whether Dural can be validly arrested without any warrant of arrest for the crime of
rebellion.
Held:
Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the 2
CAPCOM soldiers 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. However, 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. 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 ofthe
situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly
constituted authorities

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.