UMIL v RAMOS, G.R. No.

81567, 3 October 1991

FACTS:
Military agents received confidential information that a certain man, Ronnie Javellon, believed to be one of the five
NPA sparrows who recently murdered two Capcom mobile patrols 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).
Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons.
Meanwhile, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile
patrols.
In this 8 consolidated cases, 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is a valid warrantless arrest.

HELD:

YES. The arrest without warrant is justified because it is within the contemplation of Section 5 Rule 113,
Dural was committing an offense, when arrested because he was arrested for being a member of the New
People's Army, an outlawed organization, where membership penalized and for subversion which, like
rebellion is, under the doctrine of Garcia vs. Enrile, a continuing offense.

Given the ideological content of membership in the CPP/NPA which includes armed struggle for the
overthrow of organized government, Dural did not cease to be or became less of a subversive, FOR
PURPOSES OF ARREST, simply because he was, at the time of arrest, confined in the St. Agnes Hospital.

Dural was identified as one of several persons who the day before his arrest, without a warrant, at the St.
Agnes Hospital, had shot two (2) CAPCOM policemen in their patrol car. That Dural had shot the two (2)
policemen in Caloocan City as part of his mission as a "sparrow" (NPA member) did not end there and
then.

In ascertaining whether the arrest without warrant is conducted in accordance with the conditions set
forth in Section 5, Rule 113, this Court determines not whether the persons arrested are indeed guilty of
committing the crime for which they were arrested. Not evidence of guilt, but "probable cause" is the
reason that can validly compel the peace officers, in the performance of their duties and in the interest of
public order, to conduct an arrest without warrant.

The courts should not expect of law-enforcers more than what the law requires of them. Under the
conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, particularly paragraph (b) thereof, even if the arrested persons
are later found to be innocent and acquitted, the arresting officers are not liable. But if they do not strictly
comply with the said conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable for the crime of arbitrary
detention, for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code 26 and/or for other administrative sanctions.