SISON, AFP, future K.

:
The Topic is RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, REMEDIES, HABEAS CORPUS,
NON- CURABLITY OF ILLEGAL NATURE OF ARREST
UMIL v RAMOS 1
G.R. No. 81567 July 9, 1990 EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
SYLLABUS:
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:
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;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section
7.
Section 4, Rule 102, Rules of Court, as amended is quite explicit in
providing that:
Sec. 4. When writ is allowed or discharge authorized. If it
appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is
in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or
judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record,
and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall
not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is
allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any
informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor
shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of
a person charged with a convicted of an offense in the
Philippines or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful
judgment. (emphasis supplied)
ISSUE FOR ALL CASES: The are eight (8) petitioners for habeas corpus filed
before the Court, which have been consolidated because of the similarity of issues
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 to explain why
they should not be set at liberty without further delay. (unlawful arrest daw)

FACTS: In their respective Returns, the respondents uniformly assert that the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the petitioners as they have
been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid informations filed in court
against them.
The petitioners counter that their detention is unlawful as their arrests were made
without warrant and, that no preliminary investigation was first conducted, so that the
informations filed against them are null and void.
The Court has carefully reviewed the contentions of the parties in their respective
pleadings, and it finds that the persons detained have not been illegally arrested nor
arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional right to liberty, and that the circumstances
attending these cases do not warrant their release on habeas corpus.
The arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint is recognized
in law. The occasions or instances when such an arrest may be effected are clearly
spelled out in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:
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;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule
113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is justified when the person arrested is caught
in flagranti delicto, viz., in the act of committing an offense; or when an offense has
just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the
facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.
Umil vs. Ramos

FACTS: In G.R. No. 81567 (Umil vs. Ramos), the record shows that, on 1 February
1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOUCAPCOM) 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 two (2)
CAPCOM soldiers
While confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Rolando 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 two (2) CAPCOM soldiers seated inside
the car. An information charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of
"Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in Authority.

HELD and RATIO: As to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears that he was not
arrested while in the act of shooting the two (2) CAPCOM soldiers
aforementioned. 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, Rolando 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 record, moreover, shows that the criminal case filed against Rolando
Dural and Bernardo Itucal, Jr. for "Double Murder, etc." was tried in the court
below and at the conclusion thereof, or on 17 August 1988, Rolando Dural
and Bernardo Itucal, Jr. were found guilty of the charge and sentenced
accordingly. Rolando Dural is now serving the sentence imposed upon him
by the trial court. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus is no longer available to
him.

In G.R. No. 83162 (Ocaya vs. Aguirre), the arrest without warrant, of Vicky
Ocaya is justified under the Rules, since she had with her unlicensed
ammunition when she was arrested. The record of this case shows that on
12 May 1988, agents of the PC Intelligence and Investigation of the Rizal
PC-INP Command, armed with a search warrant issued by Judge Eutropio
Migrino of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, conducted a
search of a house located at Block 19, Phase II, Marikina Green Heights,
Marikina, Metro Manila, believed to be occupied by Benito Tiamson, head of
the CPP-NPA. In the course of the search, Vicky 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. As a
result, Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera were brought to the PC Headquarters
for investigation. When Vicky Ocaya could not produce any permit or
authorization to possess the ammunition, an information charging her with
violation of PD 1866 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro
Manila.
It would appear, however, that Vicky 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 of the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to
Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Rule of Court, as amended.

Roque vs. De Villa

Ocaya vs. Aguirre

In G.R. Nos. 84581-82 (Roque vs. De Villa), the arrest of Amelia Roque and
Wilfredo Buenaobra, without warrant, is also justified. When apprehended at
the house of Renato Constantino in Marikina Heights, Marikina, Metro
Manila, Wilfredo Buenaobra admitted that he was an NPA courier and he had
with him letters to Renato Constantino and other members of the rebel
group. Amelia Roque, upon the other hand, 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 fragmentation grenade for which
she had no permit or authority to possess.

The petitioners Vicky Ocaya, Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon Casiple, and

Amelia Roque claim that the firearms, ammunition and subversive
documents alleged to have been found in their possession when they were
arrested, did not belong to them, but were "planted" by the military agents to
justify their illegal arrest.
The petitioners, however, have not introduced any evidence to support their
aforesaid claim. On the other hand, no evil motive or ill-will on the part of the
arresting officers that would cause the said arresting officers in these cases
to accuse the petitioners falsely, has been shown. Besides, the arresting
officers in these cases do not appear to be seekers of glory and bounty
hunters for, as counsel for the petitioners Anonuevo and Casiple say, "there
is absolutely nothing in the evidence submitted during the inquest that
petitioners are on the 'AFP Order of Battle with a reward of P150,000.00
each on their heads.'" 6 On the other hand, as pointed out by the Solicitor
General, the arrest of the petitioners is not a product of a witch hunt or a
fishing expedition, but the result of an in-depth surveillance of NPA
safehouses pointed to by no less than former comrades of the petitioners in
the rebel movement.

Anonuevo vs. Ramos

In G.R. Nos. 84583-84 (Anonuevo vs. Ramos), the arrest of Domingo

Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, without warrant, is also justified under the
rules. Both are admittedly members of the standing committee of the NUFC
and, when apprehended in the house of Renato Constatino, they had a bag
containing subversive materials, and both carried firearms and ammunition
for which they had no license to possess or carry.
Anonuevo vs. Ramos

Espiritu vs. Lim

FACTS: The record of the case shows that the said petitioner is the General

Secretary of the Pinagkaisahang Samahan ng Tsuper at Operators

Nationwide (PISTON), an association of drivers and operators of public

service vehicles in the Philippines, organized for their mutual aid and
protection.
Petitioner claims that at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning of 23 November
1988, while he was sleeping in his home located at 363 Valencia St., Sta.
Mesa, Manila, he was awakened by his sister Maria Paz Lalic who told him
that a group of persons wanted to hire his jeepney. When he went down to
talk to them, he was immediately put under arrest. When he asked for the
warrant of arrest, the men, headed by Col. Ricardo Reyes, bodily lifted him
and placed him in their owner-type jeepney. He demanded that his sister,
Maria Paz Lalic, be allowed to accompany him, but the men did not accede
to his request and hurriedly sped away.
He was brought to Police Station No. 8 of the Western Police District at
Blumentritt, Manila where he was interrogated and detained. Then, at about
9:00 o'clock of the same morning, he was brought before the respondent Lim
and, there and then, the said respondent ordered his arrest and detention.
He was thereafter brought to the General Assignment Section, Investigation
Division of the Western Police District under Police Capt. Cresenciano A.
Cabasal where he was detained, restrained and deprived of his liberty. 7
The respondents claim however, that the detention of the petitioner is
justified in view of the Information filed against him before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 88-683-85, charging
him with violation of Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition).
The respondents also claim that the petitioner was lawfully arrested without a
judicial warrant of arrest since petitioner when arrested had in fact just
committed an offense in that in the afternoon of 22 November 1988, during a
press conference at the National Press Club.
Policemen waited for petitioner outside the National Pres Club in order to
investigate him, but he gave the lawmen the slip. 9 He was next seen at
about 5:00 o'clock that afternoon at a gathering of drivers and symphatizers
at the corner of Magsaysay Blvd. and Valencia Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila
where he was heard to say:
Bukas tuloy ang welga natin, sumagot na ang Cebu at Bicol na
kasali sila, at hindi tayo titigil hanggang hindi binibigay ng gobyerno
ni Cory ang gusto nating pagbaba ng halaga ng spare parts, bilihin at
and pagpapalaya sa ating pinuno na si Ka Roda hanggang sa
magkagulo na. 10 (emphasis supplied)
The police finally caught up with the petitioner on 23 November 1988. He
was invited for questioning and brought to police headquarters after which an
Information for violation of Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code was filed
against him before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
HELD/RATIO: In. G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the release on habeas
corpus of the petitioner Deogracias Espiritu, who is detained by virtue of an
Information for Violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to

Sedition) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is similarly not
warranted.
Nazareno vs. Station Commander

In G.R. No. 86332 (Nazareno vs. Station Commander), we also find no merit
in the submission of Narciso Nazareno that he was illegally arrested and is
unlawfully detained. The record of this case shows that at about 8:30 o'clock
in the morning of 14 December 1988, one Romulo Bunye II was killed by a
group of men near the corner of T. Molina and Mendiola Streets in Alabang,
Muntinglupa, Metro Manila. One of the suspects in the killing was Ramil
Regal who was arrested by the police on 28 December 1988. Upon
questioning, Regal pointed to Narciso Nazareno as on of his companions in
the killing of the said Romulo Bunye II. In view thereof, the police officers,
without warrant, picked up Narciso Nazareno and brought him to the police
headquarters for questioning. Obviously, the evidence of petitioner's guilt is
strong because on 3 January 1989, an information charging Narciso
Nazareno, Ramil Regala, and two (2) others, with the killing of Romulo
Bunye II was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The
case is docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 731.
FINAL NOTE
It is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal charges
have been filed in the proper courts against the petitioners. The rule is, that 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.
Section 4, Rule 102, Rules of Court, as amended is quite explicit in providing
that:
Sec. 4. When writ is allowed or discharge authorized. If it appears
that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody
of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of
a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge
had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make
the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears
after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by
reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order.
Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a
person charged with a convicted of an offense in the Philippines or of
a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment. (emphasis
supplied)
At this point, we refer to petitioner's plea for the Court of re-examine and,
thereafter, abandon its pronouncement in Ilagan vs. Enrile, 13 that a writ of
habeas corpus is no longer available after an information is filed against the
person detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment, is issued

by the court where said information has been filed. 14The petitioners claim
that the said ruling, which was handed down during the past dictatorial
regime to enforce and strengthen said regime, has no place under the
present democratic dispensation and collides with the basic, fundamental,
and constitutional rights of the people. Petitioners point out that the said
doctrine makes possible the arrest and detention of innocent persons despite
lack of evidence against them, and, most often, it is only after a petition for
habeas corpus is filed before the court that the military authorities file the
criminal information in the courts of law to be able to hide behind the
protective mantle of the said doctrine.
The fears expressed by the petitioners are not really unremediable. As the
Court sees it, re-examination or reappraisal, with a view to its abandonment,

of the Ilagan case doctrine is not the answer. The answer and the better
practice would be, not to limit the function of thehabeas corpus to a mere
inquiry as to whether or not the court which issued the process, judgment or
order of commitment or before whom the detained person is charged, had
jurisdiction or not to issue the process, judgment or order or to take
cognizance of the case, but rather, as the Court itself states in Morales, Jr.
vs. Enrile,15 "in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into
every phase and aspect of petitioner's detention-from the moment petition
was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of
the petition;" and "only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that
the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been satisfied."