Myla Ruth N.

Sara

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 People’s Army.

HELD/RATIO:
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.