Case Title Case # Umil v.

Ramos
G.R. no. 81567
Main Topic Section 2 – Searches and Seizures
Other Related Topic
Date: July 9, 1990

DOCTRINES

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;

FACTS:

• On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City, to verify confidential information , which was received by their office,
about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot
wound.
• That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who
murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00
o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City.
• The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-
two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna however it was
disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of
this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the
CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the
eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.
• In the sae of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was an NPA courier
• In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live ammunition were found at the time
of her arrest, and she admitted to owning such documents.
• As regard to Domingo Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and found subversive
documents & loaded guns without permits.
• With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a search warrant. Ammunition &
subversive documents were found in her car.
• In the Nazareno caw, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramin Regala as the latter’s
companion in killing Romulo Bunye II.

• 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 New People’s army. Etong
mga arrests na to, walang search warrant yung mga Military na nagpunta na lang dun sa mga
bahay nila. At isinama sila sa police station. According to the Military officer, matagal na daw
nila iniimbestigahan or may surveillance sila. As you see, Sec 5 Rule 113 of ROC, has given its
rules regarding warrantless arrests. The petitioners applied for writ of habeas corpus para
makalaya sila dahil nga “without legal grounds” yung paghuli at pag search sa kanila. But the
 respondent sustained their reply that they have been doing surveillance saka nahulihan na sila ng
mga “explosives, guns, and papers” – it goes to show, that tama ang kanilang “HINALA” na
may mga members nga ng NPA doon sa mga bahay na kanilang pinuntahan. – COMMENT KO
lang hahaha I personally think that this is against our right against searches and seizures. Our
Public officers and employees are bound by the laws regarding procedures on how to conduct
searching of papers and other effects saka sa paghuli ng tao. KARAPATAN mo yan bilang isang
mamayan kahit CRIMINAL ka pa.

• petitioners' plea for the Court to re-examine and, thereafter, abandon its pronouncement in Ilagan
vs. Enrile, that a writ of habeas corpus is no longer available after an information is led against
the person detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment is issued by the court
where said information has been led. The 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 led before the court that the military authorities le the criminal
information in the courts of law to be able to hide behind the protective mantle of the said
doctrine. This, petitioners assert, stands as an obstacle to the freedom and liberty of the people
and permits lawless and arbitrary State action.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Rolando Dural (and other petitioners in the other cases) were lawfully arrested.
Whether or not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to the petitioner

HELD:

Court: The arrests are legal, circumstances do not warrant the release through habeas corpus.
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization.
Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
committing as offense when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit
such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute
direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes.

The Court finds no compelling reason to abandon the said doctrine “Ilagan vs. Enrile” It is based upon
express provision of the Rules of Court and the exigencies served by the law. 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 habeas 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, "in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire
into every phase and aspect of petitioner's detention — from the moment petitioner 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." This is exactly what the Court
has done in the petitions at bar. This is what should henceforth be done in all future cases of habeas
corpus. In short, all cases involving deprivation of individual liberty should be promptly brought to the
courts for their immediate scrutiny and disposition.LLpr

The petitions are dismissed.

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, the
authorities were lucky in their fishing expeditions.

(Cruz, J.)

I dissent insofar as the ponencia affirms the ruling in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile that subversion is a
continuing offense, to justify the arrest without warrant of any person at any time as long as the
authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion of the offense. That is a dangerous
doctrine.