Umil vs Ramos, 187 SCRA 311

7/17/2019 Umil vs Ramos, 187 SCRA 311

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/umil-vs-ramos-187-scra-311 1/29

G.R. No. 81567 July 9, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMI, ROAN!O!URA "#$ RENATO %IANUE%A. MANOITA O. UMI, "#$ NICANOR P. !URA, FEICITAS%. SESE, petitioners,

vs.FI!E %. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO !E %IA, BRIG. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BRIG. GEN.AE&AN!ER AGUIRRE, respondents.

G.R. No'. 8(581)8* July 9, 1990

AMEIA RO+UE "#$ IFRE!O BUENAOBRA, petitioners,vs.GEN. RENATO !E %IA "#$ GEN. RAMON MONTANO, respondents.

G.R. No'. 8(58-)8( July 9, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ATT. !OMINGO T.ANONUE%O "#$ RAMON CASIPE. !OMINGO T. ANONUE%O "#$ RAMONCASIPE, petitioners,vs.HON. FI!E %. RAMOS, GEN. RENATO S. !E %IA, CO. E%ARISTO CARINO, T. CO. RE&!. PIA!, T/SGT. CONRA!O !E TORRES, S/SGT. ARNO! !URIAN, "#$ Co"#$#2 O334,PC)INP !#o# C#, C" C", +uo# Cy, respondents.

G.R. No. 8-16* July 9, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF %IC: A. OCAA AN!!ANN RI%ERA. %IRGIIO A. OCAA, petitioner,

vs.BRIG. GEN. AE&AN!ER AGUIRRE, CO. HERCUES CATAUNA, CO. NESTORMARIANO, respondents.

G.R. No. 857*7 July 9, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF APPICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF; !EOGRACIASESPIRITU, petitioner,vs.BRIG. GEN. AFRE!O S. IM, CO. RICAR!O REES, respondents.

G.R. No. 86--* July 9, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF NARCISO B. NA<ARENO.AFRE!O NA<ARENO, petitioner,vs.THE STATION COMMAN!ER OF THE MUNTINGUPA POICE STATION, Mu##2lu", MoM"#l", P/SGT. JACINTO ME!INA, P/SGT. EA!IO TAGE, P/SGT. E%I SOE!A!, "#$ P/SGT.MAURO AROJA!O,respondents.

Efren H. Mercado for petitioners in G.R. No. 81567.



Ricardo C. Valmonte for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 84581-8.

Ramon !. Es"#erra$ %ar&ara 'nne C. Mi"allos and '"ripino G. Mor"a for petitioners in G.R. Nos.8458(-84.

Efren H. Mercado for petitioner in G.R. No. 8(16.

%an)#ela$ *lores$ Miralles$ Raneses$ !+$ ,a#io 'ssociation for petitioner in G.R. No. 8577.

/osefina G. Camp&ell-Castillo for petitioners in G.R. No. 86((.

,0e !olicitor General for t0e respondents.

PER CURIAM;

The are eight (8) petitioners for 0a&eas corp#s filed before the Court, which have been consolidatedbecause of the similarity of issues raised, praying for the issuance of the writ of 0a&eas corp#s,ordering the respective respondents to produce the bodies of the persons named therein and toexplain why they should not be set at liberty without further delay.

In their respective eturns, the respondents uniformly assert that the privilege of the writ of 0a&eascorp#s is not available to the petitioners as they have been le"all+ arrested and are detained byvirtue of alid informations filed in court against them.

The petitioners counter that their detention is unlawful as their arrests were made 2it0o#t2arrant and, that no preliminar+ inesti"ation was first conducted, so that the informations filedagainst them are null and void.

The Court has carefully reviewed the contentions of the parties in their respective pleadings, and itfinds that the persons detained have not been illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of theirconstitutional right to liberty, and that the circumstances attending these cases do not warrant theirrelease on 0a&eas corp#s.

The arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint is recogni!ed in law. Theoccasions or instances when such an arrest may be effected are clearly spelled out in "ection #,ule $$% of the ules of Court, as amended, which provides&

"ec. #. 'rrest 2it0o#t 2arrant ' 20en la2f#l . peace officer or a private personmay, without a warrant, arrest a person&

(a) *hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actuallycommitting, or is attempting to commit an offense'

(b) *hen an offense has in fact +ust been committed, and he has personalnowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it' and

(c) *hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penalestablishment or place where he is serving final +udgment or temporarily confined



while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from oneconfinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without awarrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or +ail, and he shallbe proceeded against in accordance with ule $$-, "ection .

n arrest without a warrant of arrest, under "ection # paragraphs (a) and (b) of ule $$% of theules of Court, as amended, is +ustified when the person arrested is caught in fla"ranti delicto, i) .,in the act of committing an offense' or when an offense has +ust been committed and the personmaing the arrest has personal nowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested hascommitted it. The rationale behind lawful arrests, without warrant, was stated by this Court in thecase of 3eople s. a"#i Malas#"#i 1 thus&

To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidenceand toens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a largeextent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved ofcriminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.

The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitionsfor 0a&eas corp#shave been filed, had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense,when apprehended, so that their arrests without a warrant were clearly +ustified, and that they are,further, detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court.

brief narration of the facts and events surrounding each of the eight (8) petitions is in order.

I

In /.. 0o. 8$#1 (2mil vs. amos), the record shows that, on $ 3ebruary $488, the egionalIntelligence 5perations 2nit of the Capital Command (I526C7C5) received confidential

information about a member of the 07 "parrow 2nit (li9uidation s9uad) being treated for a gunshotwound at the "t. gnes :ospital in oosevelt venue, ;ue!on City. 2pon verification, it was foundthat the wounded person, who was listed in the hospital records as onnie <avelon, is actuallyolando =ural, a member of the 07 li9uidation s9uad, responsible for the ill ing of two (-)C7C5 soldiers the day before, or on %$ <anuary $488, in acanining "treet, >agong >arrio,Caloocan City. In view of this verification, olando =ural was transferred to the egional edical"ervices of the C7C5, for security reasons. *hile confined thereat, or on ? 3ebruary $488,olando =ural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top of the hoodof the C7C5 mobile patrol car, and fired at the two (-) C7C5 soldiers seated inside the caridentified as T@"gt. Carlos 7abon and CIC enato anligot.

s a conse9uence of this positive identification, olando =ural was referred to the Caloocan City3iscal who conducted an in9uest and thereafter filed with the egional Trial Court of Caloocan City

an information charging olando =ural alias onnie <avelon with the crime of A=ouble urder with ssault 2pon gents of 7ersons in uthority.A The case was doceted therein as Criminal Case 0o.C6%B$$- and no bail was recommended. 5n $# 3ebruary $488, the information was amended toinclude, as defendant, >ernardo Itucal, <r. who, at the filing of the original information, was stillunidentified.

eanwhile, on 1 3ebruary $488, a petition for 0a&eas corp#s was filed with this Court on behalfof Ro&erto mil ,Rolando #ral , and Renato Villan#ea. The Court issued the writ of 0a&eas



corp#s on 4 3ebruary $488 and the respondents filed a eturn of the *rit on $- 3ebruary $488.Thereafter, the parties were heard on $# 3ebruary $488.

5n -1 3ebruary $488, however, Ro&erto mil and Renato Villan#ea posted bail before theegional Trial Court of 7asay City where charges for violation of the nti6"ubversion ct had beenfiled against them, and they were accordingly released. The petition for 0a&eas corp#s, insofar as

2mil and illanueva are concerned, is now moot and academic and is accordingly dismissed, sincethe writ of 0a&eas corp#s does not lie in favor of an accused in a criminal case who has beenreleased on bail. *

s to Rolando #ral , it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the two(-) C7C5 soldiers aforementioned. 0or was he arrested +ust after the commission of the saidoffense for his arrest came a da+ after the said shooting incident. "eemingly, his arrest withoutwarrant is un+ustified.

:owever, olando =ural was arrested for being a member of the 0ew 7eoples rmy (07), anoutlawed subversive organi!ation. "ubversion being a contin#in" offense, the arrest of olando=ural without warrant is +ustified 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 oroffenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaultsagainst the "tate and are in the nature of contin#in" crimes. s stated by the Court in an earliercase&

3rom the facts as above6narrated, the claim of the petitioners that they were initiallyarrested illegally is, therefore, without basis in law and in fact. The crimes ofinsurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes,and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance, on the occasion thereof,or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under 7residential 7roclamation 0o.-B?#, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from thecommon offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy ofnationwide magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest of the herein detainees was well

within the bounds of the law and existing +urisprudence in our +urisdiction.

-. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armedelements, or for committing non6violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, ismore an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to 9uell therebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for astatutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in theprosecution of offenses which re9uires the determination by a +udge of the existenceof probable cause before the issuance of a +udicial warrant of arrest and the grantingof bail if the offense is bailable. 5bviously, the absence of a +udicial warrant is nolegal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violenceagainst government forces, or any other milder acts but e9ually in pursuance of the

rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of thesituation that involves the very survival of society and its government and dulyconstituted authorities. If illing and other acts of violence against the rebels find

+ustification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence of waging arebellion or insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely sei!ing theirpersons and detaining them while any of these contingencies continues cannot beless +ustified. . . . -



The record, moreover, shows that the criminal case filed against Rolando #ral and %ernardot#cal , /r . for A=ouble urder, etc.A was tried in the court below and at the conclusion thereof, or on$ ugust $488, olando =ural and >ernardo Itucal, <r. were found guilty of the charge andsentenced accordingly. olando =ural is now serving the sentence imposed upon him by the trialcourt. Thus, the writ of 0a&eas corp#s is no longer available to him. 3or, as held in the early caseof .!. s. ilson& (

In this case, whatever may be said about the manner of his arrest, the fact remainsthat the defendant was actually in court in the custody of the law on arch -4, whena complaint sufficient in form and substance was read to him. To this he pleaded notguilty. The trial followed, in which, and in the +udgment of guilty pronounced by thecourt, we find no error. *hether, if there were irregularities in bringing him personallybefore the court, he could have been released on a writ of 0a&eas corp#sor now hasa civil action for damages against the person who arrested him we need not in9uire.It is enough to say that such irregularities are not sufficient to set aside a valid

+udgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint and after a trial free from error.

II

In /.. 0os. 8?#8$68- (o9ue vs. =e illa), the arrest of 'melia Ro#e and ilfredo %#enao&ra,without warrant, is also +ustified. *hen apprehended at the house of enato Constantino in ariina:eights, ariina, etro anila, *ilfredo >uenaobra admitted that he was an 07 courier and hehad with him letters to enato Constantino and other members of the rebel group. melia o9ue,upon the other hand, was a member of the 0ational 2nited 3ront Commission, in charge of finance,and admitted ownership of subversive documents found in the house of her sister in Caloocan City."he was also in possession of ammunition and a fragmentation grenade for which she had no permitor authority to possess.

The record of these two (-) cases shows that on - <une $488, one ogelio amos y Ibanes, amember of the 07, who had surrendered to the military authorities, told military agents about theoperations of the Communist 7arty of the 7hilippines (C77) and the 0ew 7eoples rmy (07) in

etro anila. :e identified some of his former comrades as ADa ongA, a staff member of theCommunications and Transportation >ureau' ADa 0eliaA, a staff member in charge of finance' ADaillerA, an 07 courier from "orsogon and Eope!, ;ue!on' ADa TedA, and ADa TotoyA. :e alsopointed to a certain house occupied by enato Constantino located in the illalu! Compound,olave "t., ariina :eights, ariina, etro anila, which is used as a safehouse of the 0ational2nited 3ront Commission (023C) of the C77607.

In view of these revelations, the Constantino house was placed under military surveillance and on $- ugust $488, pursuant to a search warrant issued by <udge Futropio igrino of the egional TrialCourt of 7asig, a search of the house was conducted at about #&BB oGcloc in the afternoon, by acombined team of the Criminal Investigation "ervice, 0ational Capital =istrict (CI"60C=) and theConstabulary "ecurity /roup (C"/). In the course of the search, the following articles were found

and taen under proper receipt&

a) 5ne ($) Colt $1$ long rifle with defaced serial number'

b) 5ne ($) Cal. .%8B CT@4mm odel 77D@8 "0& -1B# H -1B#8'

c) Two (-) fragmentation hand grenades'

d) 3ifty6six (#1) live ammunition for Cal. #.#1 mm'



e) 3ive (#) live ammunition for Cal. .%8B'

f) 5ne ($) IC5 :3 3 adio Transciever "0& $?4B%

g) 5ne ($) egulated power supply --B C'

h) 5ne ($) ntennae (ad+ustable)'

i) 5ne ($) "peaer with cord EF'

+) oluminous "ubversive documents.

*hen confronted, enato Constatino could not produce any permit or authority to possess thefirearms, ammunition, radio and other communications e9uipment. :ence, he was brought to theCI" :ead9uarters for investigation. *hen 9uestioned, he refused to give a written statement,although he admitted that he was a staff member of the executive committee of the 023C and araning member of the International =epartment of the Communist 7arty of the 7hilippines (C77).

t about 8&BB oGcloc in the evening of the same day ($- ugust $488), *ilfredo >uenaobra arrivedat the house of enato Constantino in the illalu! Compound. *hen accosted, hereadily admitted to the military agents that he is a regular member of the C77@07 and that he wentto the place to deliver letters to ADa ongA, referring to enato Constatino, and other members ofthe rebel group. 5n further 9uestioning, he also admitted that he is nown as ADa illerA and that hewas from >arangay "an 7edro, Eope!, ;ue!on. mong the items taen from him were the following&

($) :andwritten letter addressed to ADa >ing H Co. from H Co.A dated ugust $$,$488'

(-) :andwritten letter addressed to A5= from IC ("chell datre)A dated ugust $$,$488'

(%) :andwritten letter addressed to A"u!ieA from AicA, dated ugust $$, $488.

lso found >uenaobraGs possession was a piece of paper containing a written but +umbled telephonenumber of 3lorida . o9ue, sister of melia o9ue alias ADa 0eliaA, at 14 /eronimo "t., CaloocanCity. cting on the lead provided as to the whereabouts of 'melia Ro#e, the military agents went tothe given address the next day ($% ugust $488). They arrived at the place at about $$&BB oGcloc inthe morning. fter identifying themselves as military agents and after seeing permission to searchthe place, which was granted, the military agents conducted a search in the presence of theoccupants of the house and the barangay captain of the place, one <esus =. 5lba.

The military agents found the place to be another safehouse of the 023C@C77. They found ledgers,

+ournals, vouchers, ban deposit boos, folders, computer disettes, and subversive documents aswell as live ammunition for a .%8 "7E *inchester, $$ rounds of live ammunition for a cal. .?#, $4rounds of live ammunition for an $1 ifle, and a fragmentation grenade. s a result, melia o9ueand the other occupants of the house were brought to the 7C6CI" :ead9uarters at Camp Crame,;ue!on City, for investigation. melia o9ue admitted to the investigators that the voluminousdocuments belonged to her and that the other occupants of the house had no nowledge of them. sa result, the said other occupants of the house were released from custody.



5n $# ugust $488, melia o9ue was brought to the Caloocan City 3iscal for in9uest after whichan information charging her with violation of 7= $811 was filed with the egional Trial Court ofCaloocan City. The case is doceted therein as Criminal Case 0o. C6$$41. nother information forviolation of the nti6"ubversion ct was filed against melia o9ue before the etropolitan TrialCourt of Caloocan City, which is doceted therein as Criminal Case 0o. C6$#B?#8.

n information for violation of the nti6"ubversion ct was filed against ilfredo %#enao&ra beforethe etropolitan Trial Court of ariina, etro anila. The case is doceted therein as CriminalCase 0o. -%$#. >ail was set at 7?,BBB.BB.

5n -? ugust $488, a petition for 0a&eas corp#s was filed before this Court on behalf of meliao9ue and *ilfredo >uenaobra. t the hearing of the case, however, *ilfredo >uenaobramanifested his desire to stay in the 7C6I07 "tocade at Camp Crame, ;ue!on City. ccording, thepetition for 0a&eas corp#s filed on his behalf is now moot and academic. 5nly the petition of meliao9ue remains for resolution.

The contention of respondents that petitioners o9ue and >uenaobra are officers and@or membersof the 0ational 2nited 3ront Commission (023C) of the C77 was not controverted or traversed by

said petitioners. The contention must be deemed admitted.5

s officers and@or members of the 023C6C77, their arrest, without warrant, was +ustified for the same reasons earlier stated is-a-is Rolando#ral . The arrest without warrant of o9ue was additionally +ustified as she was, at the time ofapprehension, in possession of ammunitions without license to possess them.

III

In /.. 0os. 8?#8%68? (nonuevo vs. amos), the arrest of omin"o 'non#eo and RamonCasiple, without warrant, is also +ustified under the rules. >oth are admittedly members of thestanding committee of the 023C and, when apprehended in the house of enato Constatino, theyhad a bag containing subversive materials, and both carried firearms and ammunition for which theyhad no license to possess or carry.

The record of these two (-) cases shows that at about &%B oGcloc in the evening of $% ugust $488,=omingo T. nonuevo and amon Casiple arrived at the house of enato Constatino at ariina:eights, ariina, which was still under surveillance by military agents. The military agents noticedbulging ob+ects on their waist lines. *hen frised, the agents found them to be loaded guns.

nonuevo and Casiple were ased to show their permit or license to possess or carry firearms andammunition, but they could not produce any. :ence, they were brought to 7C :ead9uarters forinvestigation. 3ound in their possession were the following articles&

a) oluminous subversive documents

b) 5ne ($) Cal. .1# 5= 8% -C 7istol "0& BB$?$- with one ($) maga!ine for Cal..1# containing ten ($B) live ammunition of same caliber'

c) 5ne ($) Cal. .1# 7ietro >arreta "0' $8818 last digit tampered with one ($)maga!ine containing five (#) live ammunition of same caliber.

t the 7C "tocade, =omingo nonuevo was identified as ADa TedA, and amon Casiple as ADaTotoyA of the C77, by their comrades who had previously surrendered to the military.



5n $# ugust $488, the record of the investigation and other documentary evidence were forwardedto the 7rovincial 3iscal at 7asig, etro anila, who conducted an in9uest, after which =omingo

nonuevo and amon Casiple were charged with violation of 7residential =ecree 0o. $811 beforethe egional Trial Court of 7asig, etro anila. The cases are doceted therein as Criminal Cases0os. ?%81 ad ?%8, respectively. 0o bail was recommended.

5n -? ugust $488, a petition for 0a&eas corp#s was filed with this Court on behalf of =omingo nonuevo and amon Casiple, alleging that the said nonuevo and Casiple were unlawfullyarrested without a warrant and that the informations filed against them are null and void for havingbeen filed without prior hearing and preliminary investigation. 5n %B ugust $488, the Court issuedthe writ of 0a&eas corp#s, and after the respondents had filed a eturn of the *rit, the parties wereheard.

The petitionersG (nonuevo and Casiple) claim that they were unlawfully arrested because there wasno previous warrant of arrest, is without merit The record shows that =omingo nonuevo andamon Casiple were carrying unlicensed firearms and ammunition in their person when they wereapprehended.

There is also no merit in the contention that the informations filed against them are null and void forwant of a preliminary investigation. The filing of an information, without a preliminary investigationhaving been first conducted, is sanctioned by the ules. "ec. , ule $$- of the ules of Court, asamended, reads&

"ec. . 0en acc#sed la2f#ll+ arrested 2it0o#t a 2arrant . *hen a person islawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense cogni!able by the egional TrialCourt the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace officeror fiscal without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, on the basisof the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

:owever, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested mayas for a preliminary investigation by a proper officer in accordance with this ule,but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of rticle $-# of the evised 7enal Code,as amended, with the assistance of a lawyer and in case of non6availability of alawyer, a responsible person of his choice. 0otwithstanding such waiver, he mayapply for bail as provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must beterminated within fifteen ($#) days from its inception.

If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation having been firstconducted, the accused may within five (#) days from the time he learns of the filingof the information, as for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adducedevidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this ule.

The petitioners =omingo nonuevo and amon Casiple, however, refused to sign a waiver of the

provisions of rticle $-# of the evised 7enal Code, as amended. In the informations filed againstthem, the prosecutor made identical certifications, as follows&

This is to certify that the accused has been charged in accordance with "ec. , ule$$- of the $48# ules on Criminal 7rocedure, that no preliminary investigation wasconducted because the accused has not made and signed a waiver of the provisionsof rt. $-# of the evised 7enal Code, as amended' that based on the evidencepresented, there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime has been committed,and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.



0or did petitioners as for a preliminary investigation after the informations had been filed againstthem in court. 7etitioners cannot now claim that they have been deprived of their constitutional rightto due process.

I

In /.. 0o. 8%$1- (5caya vs. guirre), the arrest without warrant, of Vic9+ :ca+a is +ustified underthe ules, since she had with her unlicensed ammunition when she was arrested. The record of thiscase shows that on $- ay $488, agents of the 7C Intelligence and Investigation of the i!al 7C6I07 Command, armed with a search warrant issued by <udge Futropio igrino of the egional TrialCourt of 7asig, etro anila, conducted a search of a house located at >loc $4, 7hase II, ariina/reen :eights, ariina, etro anila, believed to be occupied by >enito Tiamson, head of theC77607. In the course of the search, icy 5caya arrived in a car driven by =anny ivera."ubversive documents and several rounds of ammunition for a .?# cal. pistol were found in the carof icy 5caya. s a result, icy 5caya and =anny ivera were brought to the 7C :ead9uartersfor investigation. *hen icy 5caya could not produce any permit or authori!ation to possess theammunition, an information charging her with violation of 7= $811 was filed with the egional TrialCourt of 7asig, etro anila. The case is doceted therein as Criminal Case 0o. %??. =anny

ivera, on the other hand, was released from custody.

5n $ ay $488, a petition for 0a&eas corp#s was filed, with this Court on behalf of icy 5cayaand =anny ivera. It was alleged therein that icy 5caya was illegally arrested and detained, anddenied the right to a preliminary investigation.

It would appear, however, that icy 5caya was arrested in fla"ranti delicto so that her arrest withouta warrant is +ustified. 0o preliminary investigation was conducted because she was arrested withouta warrant and she refused to waive the provisions of rticle $-# of the evised 7enal Code,pursuant to "ec. , ule $$- of the ule of Court, as amended.

The petitioners icy 5caya, =omingo nonuevo, amon Casiple, and melia o9ue claim that thefirearms, ammunition and subversive documents alleged to have been found in their possessionwhen they were arrested, did not belong to them, but were AplantedA by the military agents to +ustifytheir illegal arrest.

The petitioners, however, have not introduced any evidence to support their aforesaid claim. 5n theother hand, no evil motive or ill6will on the part of the arresting officers that would cause the saidarresting officers in these cases to accuse the petitioners falsely, has been shown. >esides, thearresting officers in these cases do not appear to be seeers of glory and bounty hunters for, ascounsel for the petitioners nonuevo and Casiple say, Athere is absolutely nothing in the evidencesubmitted during the in9uest that petitioners are on the G37 5rder of >attle with a reward of7$#B,BBB.BB each on their heads.GA 6 5n the other hand, as pointed out by the "olicitor /eneral, the

arrest of the petitioners is not a product of a witch hunt or a fishing expedition, but the result of an in6depthsurveillance of 07 safehouses pointed to by no less than former comrades of the petitioners in the rebelmovement.

The "olicitor /eneral, in his Consolidated emorandum, aptly observes&

. . . . To reiterate, the focal point in the case of petitioners o9ue, >uenaobra, nonuevo and Casiple, was the lawful search and sei!ure conducted by the militaryat the residence of enato Constantino at illalu! Compound, olave "t., ariina



:eights, ariina, etro anila. The raid at ConstantinoGs residence, was not a witchhunting or fishing expedition on the part of the military. It was a result of an in6depthmilitary surveillance coupled with the leads provided by former members of theunderground subversive organi!ations. That raid produced positive results. to date,nobody has disputed the fact that the residence of Constantino when raided yieldedcommunication e9uipment, firearms and ammunitions, as well as subversive

documents.

The military agents woring on the information provided by Constantino that othermembers of his group were coming to his place, reasonably conducted a Astae6outAoperation whereby some members of the raiding team were left behind the place.True enough, barely two hours after the raid and ConstantinoGs arrest, petitioner>uenaobra arrived at ConstantinoGs residence. :e acted suspiciously and whenfrised and searched by the military authorities, found in his person were letters.They are no ordinary letters, as even a cursory reading would show. 0ot only that,>uenaobra admitted that he is a 07 courier and was there to deliver the letters toConstantino.

"ubse9uently, less than twenty four hours after the arrest of Constantino and>uenaobra, petitioners nonuevo and Casiple arrived at ConstantinoGs place. *ouldit be unreasonable for the military agents to believe that petitioners nonuevo andCasiple are among those expected to visit ConstantinoGs residence considering thatConstatinoGs information was true, in that >uenaobra did come to that placeJ *as itunreasonable under the circumstances, on the part of the military agents, not to frisand search anyone who should visit the residence of Constantino, such aspetitioners nonuevo and CasipleJ ust this :onorable Court yield to nonuevo andCasipleGs flimsy and bare assertion that they went to visit Constantino, who was toleave for "audi rabia on the day they were arrested thereatJ

s to petitioner o9ue, was it unreasonable for the military authorities to effect herarrest without warrant considering that it was >uenaobra who provided the leads on

her identityJ It cannot be denied that >uenaobra had connection with o9ue.>ecause the former has the phone number of the latter. *hy the necessity of

+umbling o9ueGs telephone number as written on a piece of paper taen from>uenaobraGs possessionJ 7etitioners o9ue and >uenaobra have not offered anyplausible reason so far.

In all the above incidents, respondents maintain that they acted reasonably, underthe time, place and circumstances of the events in 9uestion, especially consideringthat at the time of petitionerGs arrest, incriminatory evidence, i .e, firearms,ammunitions and@or subversive documents were found in their possession.

7etitioners, when arrested, were neither taing their snacs nor innocently visiting a

camp, but were arrested in such time, place and circumstances, from which one canreasonably conclude tat they were up to a sinister plot, involving utmost secrecy andcomprehensive conspiracy.

I

In. /.. 0o. 8#- (Fspiritu vs. Eim), the release on 0a&eas corp#s of the petitioner =eograciasFspiritu, who is detained by virtue of an Information for iolation of rticle $?- of the evised 7enalCode (Inciting to "edition) filed with the egional Trial Court of anila, is similarly not warranted.



The record of the case shows that the said petitioner is the /eneral "ecretary of the 7inagaisahang"amahan ng Tsuper at 5perators 0ationwide (7I"T50), an association of drivers and operators ofpublic service vehicles in the 7hilippines, organi!ed for their mutual aid and protection.

7etitioner claims that at about #&BB oGcloc in the morning of -% 0ovember $488, while he wassleeping in his home located at %1% alencia "t., "ta. esa, anila, he was awaened by his sister

aria 7a! Ealic who told him that a group of persons wanted to hire his +eepney. *hen he wentdown to tal to them, he was immediately put under arrest. *hen he ased for the warrant of arrest,the men, headed by Col. icardo eyes, bodily lifted him and placed him in their owner6type

+eepney. :e demanded that his sister, aria 7a! Ealic, be allowed to accompany him, but the mendid not accede to his re9uest and hurriedly sped away.

:e was brought to 7olice "tation 0o. 8 of the *estern 7olice =istrict at >lumentritt, anila where hewas interrogated and detained. Then, at about 4&BB oGcloc of the same morning, he was broughtbefore the respondent Eim and, there and then, the said respondent ordered his arrest anddetention. :e was thereafter brought to the /eneral ssignment "ection, Investigation =ivision ofthe *estern 7olice =istrict under 7olice Capt. Cresenciano . Cabasal where he was detained,restrained and deprived of his liberty. 7

The respondents claim however, that the detention of the petitioner is +ustified in view of theInformation filed against him before the egional Trial Court of anila, doceted therein as CriminalCase 0o. 88618%68#, charging him with violation of rt. $?- of the evised 7enal Code (Inciting to"edition).

The respondents also claim that the petitioner was lawfully arrested without a +udicial warrant ofarrest since petitioner when arrested had in fact +ust committed an offense in that in the afternoon of-- 0ovember $488, during a press conference at the 0ational 7ress Club.

=eogracias Fspiritu through tri6media was heard urging all drivers and operators togo on nationwide strie on 0ovember -%, $488, to force the government to give intotheir demands to lower the prices of spare parts, commodities, water and theimmediate release from detention of the president of the 7I"T50 (7inag6isang"amahan ng Tsuper 5perators 0ationwide). 3urther, we heard =eogracias Fspiritutaing the place of 7I"T50 president edardo oda and also announced theformation of the lliance =rivers ssociation to go on nationwide strie on 0ovember-%, $488. 8

7olicemen waited for petitioner outside the 0ational 7res Club in order to investigate him, but hegave the lawmen the slip. 9 :e was next seen at about #&BB oGcloc that afternoon at a gathering ofdrivers and symphati!ers at the corner of agsaysay >lvd. and alencia "treet, "ta. esa, anila wherehe was heard to say&

>uas tuloy ang welga natin, sumagot na ang Cebu at >icol na asali sila, at hindi

tayo titigil hanggang hindi binibigay ng gobyerno ni Cory ang gusto nating pagbabang halaga ng spare parts, bilihin at and pagpapalaya sa ating pinuno na si Daoda 0an""an" sa ma"9a"#lo na. 10 (emphasis supplied)

The police finally caught up with the petitioner on -% 0ovember $488. :e was invited for 9uestioningand brought to police head9uarters after which an Information for violation of rt. $?- of the evised7enal Code was filed against him before the egional Trial Court of anila. 11



"ince the arrest of the petitioner without a warrant was in accordance with the provisions of ule$$%, "ec. #(b) of the ules of Court and that the petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid informationfiled with the competent court, he may not be released on 0a&eas corp#s. :e may, however bereleased upon posting bail as recommended. :owever, we find the amount of the recommended bail(71B,BBB.BB) excessive and we reduce it to 7$B,BBB.BB only.

II

In /.. 0o. 81%%- (0a!areno vs. "tation Commander), we also find no merit in the submissionof Narciso Na)areno that he was illegally arrested and is unlawfully detained. The record of this caseshows that at about 8&%B oGcloc in the morning of $? =ecember $488, one omulo >unye II wasilled by a group of men near the corner of T. olina and endiola "treets in labang, untinglupa,etro anila. 5ne of the suspects in the illing was amil egal who was arrested by the police on-8 =ecember $488. 2pon 9uestioning, egal pointed to 0arciso 0a!areno as on of his companionsin the illing of the said omulo >unye II. In view thereof, the police officers, without warrant, picedup 0arciso 0a!areno and brought him to the police head9uarters for 9uestioning. 5bviously, theevidence of petitionerGs guilt is strong because on % <anuary $484, an information charging 0arciso0a!areno, amil egala, and two (-) others, with the illing of omulo >unye II was filed with the

egional Trial Court of aati, etro anila. The case is doceted therein as Criminal Case 0o.%$.

5n <anuary $484, 0arciso 0a!areno filed a motion to post bail, but the motion was denied by thetrial court in an order dated $B <anuary $484, even as the motion to post bail, earlier filed by his co6accused, anuel Eaureaga, was granted by the same trial court.

5n $% <anuary $484, a petition for 0a&eas corp#s was filed with this Court on behalf of 0arciso0a!areno and on $% <anuary $484, the Court issued the writ of 0a&eas corp#s, returnable to the7residing <udge of the egional Trial Court of >iKan, Eaguna, >ranch -?, ordering said court to hearthe case on %B <anuary $484 and thereafter resolve the petition.

t the conclusion of the hearing, or on $ 3ebruary $484, the 7residing <udge of the egional TrialCourt of >iKan, Eaguna issued a resolution denying the petition for 0a&eas corp#s, it appearing thatthe said 0arciso 0a!areno is in the custody of the respondents by reason of an information filedagainst him with the egional Trial Court of aati, etro anila which had taen cogni!ance ofsaid case and had, in fact, denied the motion for bail filed by said 0arciso 0a!areno (presumablybecause of the strength of the evidence against him).

The findings of the 7residing <udge of the egional Trial Court of >iKan, Eaguna are based upon thefacts and the law. Conse9uently, we will not disturb the same. Fvidently, the arrest of 0a!areno waseffected by the police without warrant pursuant to "ec. #(b), ule $$%, ules of Court after he waspositively implicated by his co6accused amil egala in the illing of omulo >unyeII' and after investigation by the police authorities. s held in 3eople s. 'nc0eta& 1*

The obligation of an agent of authority to mae an arrest by reason of a crime, doesnot presuppose as a necessary re9uisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitableexistence of a crime. 3or the detention to be perfectly legal, it is sufficient that theagent or person in authority maing the arrest has reasonably sufficient grounds tobelieve the existence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that thesame grounds exist to believe that the person sought to be detained participatedtherein.

III



It is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal charges have been filed in theproper courts against the petitioners. The rule is, that if a person alleged to be restrained of hisliberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court +udge, and that the court or

+udge had +urisdiction to issue the process or mae the order, of if s#c0 person is c0ar"ed &eforean+ co#rt , the writ of 0a&eas corp#s will not be allowed. "ection ?, ule $B-, ules of Court, asamended is 9uite explicit in providing that&

"ec. ?. 0en 2rit is allo2ed or disc0ar"e a#t0ori)ed . If it appears that the personalleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under processissued by a court or +udge or by virtue of a +udgment or order of a court of record, andthat the court or +udge had +urisdiction to issue the process, render the +udgment, ormae the order, the writ shall not be allowed' or if the +urisdiction appears after thewrit is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality ordefect in the process, +udgment, or order. Nor s0all an+t0in" in t0is r#le &e 0eld toa#t0ori)e t0e disc0ar"e of a person c0ar"ed 2it0 a conicted of an offense in t0e30ilippines or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful +udgment. (emphasissupplied)

t this point, we refer to petitionerGs plea for the Court of re6examine and, thereafter, abandon itspronouncement in la"an s. Enrile, 1- that a writ of 0a&eas corp#s is no longer available after aninformation is filed against the person detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment, isissued by the court where said information has been filed. 1(The petitioners claim that the said ruling,which was handed down during the past dictatorial regime to enforce and strengthen said regime, has noplace under the present democratic dispensation and collides with the basic, fundamental, andconstitutional rights of the people. 7etitioners point out that the said doctrine maes possible the arrestand detention of innocent persons despite lac of evidence against them, and, most often, it is only after apetition for 0a&eas corp#s is filed before the court that the military authorities file the criminal informationin the courts of law to be able to hide behind the protective mantle of the said doctrine. This, petitionersassert, stands as an obstacle to the freedom and liberty of the people and permits lawless and arbitrary"tate action.

*e find, however, no compelling reason to abandon the said doctrine. It is based upon expressprovision of the ules of Court and the exigencies served by the law. The fears expressed by thepetitioners are not really unremediable. s the Court sees it, re6examination or reappraisal, with aview to its abandonment, of the Ilagan case doctrine is not the answer. The answer and the betterpractice would be, not to limit the function of the0a&eas corp#s to a mere in9uiry as to whether or notthe court which issued the process, +udgment or order of commitment or before whom the detainedperson is charged, had +urisdiction or not to issue the process, +udgment or order or to taecogni!ance of the case, but rather, as the Court itself states in Morales$ /r . s. Enrile,15 Ain all

petitions for 0a&eas corp#s the court must in9uire into every phase and aspect of petitionerGs detention6from the moment petition 2as ta9en into c#stod+ #p to t0e moment t0e co#rt passes #pon t0e merits oft0e petition'A and Aonl+ after s#c0 a scr#tin+ can t0e co#rt satisf+ itself t0at t0e d#e process cla#se of o#rConstit#tion 0as in fact &een satisfied .A 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 0a&eas corp#s. In "hort, all cases involving

deprivation of individual liberty should be promptly brought to the courts for their immediate scrutiny anddisposition.

*:FF35F, the petitions are hereby =I"I""F=, except that in G.R . No. 8577 (Fspiritu vs.Eim), the bail bond for petitionerGs provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from 71B,BBB.BB to7$B,BBB.BB. 0o costs.

"5 5=FF=.



*ernan C./.$ Narasa$ C./.$ Melencio-Herrera$ G#tierre)$ /r.$ 3aras$ Ganca+co$ 3adilla$ %idin$ Gri;o- '#ino$ Medialdea and Re"alado$ //.$ conc#r.

S"" O#o#'

CRU<, J., dissenting and concurring&

I dissent insofar as the ponencia affirms the ruling in Garcia-3adilla . Fnrile that subversion is acontinuing offense, to +ustify the arrest without warrant of any person at an+ time as long as theauthorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion of the offense. That is adangerous doctrine. person may be arrested when he is doing the most innocent acts, as when heis only washing his hands, or taing his supper, or even when he is sleeping, on the ground that heis committing the AcontinuingA offense of subversion. Eibertarians were appalled when that doctrinewas imposed during the arcos regime. I am alarmed that even now this new Court is willing tosustain it. I strongly urge my colleagues to discard it altogether as one of the disgraceful vestiges ofthe past dictatorship and uphold the rule guaranteeing the right of the people against unreasonablesearches and sei!ures. *e can do no less if we are really to re+ect the past oppression and commitourselves to the true freedom. Fven if it be argued that the military should be given every support inour fight against subversion, I maintain that that fight must be waged honorably, in accordance withthe >ill of ights. I do not believe that in fighting the enemy we must adopt the ways of the enemy,which are precisely what we are fighting a"ainst . I submit that our more important motivation shouldbe what are we fighting for .

Fxcept for this reservation and appeal, I concur with the decision.

FEICIANO, J., concurring&

I concur in the result reached in each of the eight (8) consolidated 7etitions for Ha&eas Corp#s. tthe same time, I have some reservations concerning certain statements made by the Court in /..0o. 8$#1 (2mil, et al. v. amos) (7art I of the =ecision) and in /.. 0o. 8#- (Fspiritu v. Eim)(7art I of the =ecision).

In /.. 0o. 8$#1 (2mil, et al. v. amos), the per c#riam opinion states categorically that& Athecrimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes oroffenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaultsagainst the "tate and are in the nature of contin#in" crimes.A The ma+ority here relies upon Garcia-3adilla . Enrile ($-$ "C ?- L$48%M). The ma+ority there made the same e9ually broad statementbut without any visible effort to examine the basis, scope and meaning of such a sweepingstatement. Garcia-3adilla did not even identify the specific offenses which it regarded as Ain thenature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offensesA ($-$ "C at ?84).It appears to me that in /.. 0o. 8#- (Fspiritu v. Eim) (7art I of the =ecision), the per



c#riam opinion has in effect included the offense of Ainciting to seditionA penali!ed under rticle $?-of the evised 7enal Code as a Acontinuing offenseA under the capacious blanet of the ma+orityopinion in Garcia-3adilla, at least for purposes of determining the legality of the arrest without awarrant of petitioner =eogracias Fspiritu.

I would respectfully recall to my learned colleagues in the Court that Ainciting to seditionA is defined in

rticle $?- of the evised 7enal Code in terms of speech 1 and that conse9uently it is importantconstantly do distinguish between speech which is protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom ofspeech and of the press and speech which may constitutionally be regarded as violative of rticle $?- ofthe evised 7enal Code. 7recisely because speech which the police authorities might regard as seditiousor as criminal inciting to sedition may well turn out to be only an exercise of a constitutionally guaranteedfreedom, I would submit that we must apply the concept of Acontinuing offenseA narrowly for purposes ofapplication of "ection #(b), ule $$% of the evised ules of Court.

In my view, the very broad statement made about Acontinuing crimesA in /.. 0o. 8$#1 (2mil, et alv. amos) constitutes dict#m, considering that olando =ural and >ernardo Itucal, <r. had alreadybeen tried in the court below for Adouble murder, etc.A and found guilty of the offense charged,sentenced accordingly, and at least in the case of olando =ural, service of the sentence imposedupon him by the trial court had already begun.

"imilarly, in /.. 0o. 8#- (Fspiritu v. Eim) the statement that the arrest of petitioner Fspirituwithout a warrant was in accordance with the provisions of "ection #(b), ule $$% of the evisedules of Court does not appear strictly necessary, considering that the petitioner had already beencharged in a valid information filed with the competent court, which court had presumably issued anorder for his commitment, and considering further that he is entitled to bail.

There is thus no obstacle, to my mind, to a careful examination of the doctrine of Acontinuing crimesAas applied to such offenses as subversion and inciting to sedition and possibly other offenses, insome future case where that issue is raised s9uarely and is unavoidable.

Cortes$ /.$ conc#rs.

SARMIENTO, J., dissenting&

I beg to differ from my brethren. I submit that 0a&eas corp#s lies in all eight cases.

/.. 0o. 8$#1

The ma+ority says that olando =uralGs arrest without a warrant is lawful under the ules of Court,which reads&






(c) *hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penalestablishment or place where he is serving final +udgment or temporarily confinedwhile his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from oneconfinement 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 +ail, and he shall be proceeded against inaccordance with ule $$-, "ection . 1

Aolando =ural,A so states the ma+ority, Awas arrested for being a member of the 0ew 7eopleGs rmy(07), an outlawed subversive organi!ation,A * and that ALsMubversion being a contin#in" offense, thearrest of olando =ural without a warrant is +ustified as it can be said that he was committing an offensewhen arrested.A -

s I said, I beg to differ.

3irst, olando =ural was charged with A=ouble urder with ssault upon gents of uthority.A ( If hehad been guilty of subversion the offense for which he was supposedly arrested ia a warrantless

arrest subversion was the logical crime with which he should have been charged.

The authorities could not have rightly arrested him for subversion on account of the slay of the twoC7C5 soldiers, a possible basis for violation of the nti6"ubversion ct, because as the ma+oritypoints out, Ahe was not arrested while in the act of shooting LthemM . . . LnMor was he arrested +ustafter the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a da+ after the said shooting incident.A 5

"econd, I do not believe that a warrantless (or citi!enGs) arrest is possible in case of subversion inthe absence of any overt act that would +ustify the authorities to act. A"ubversion,A as the term isnown in law, means Anowingly, wilfully and &+ oert acts affiliatLingM LoneselfM with, becomLingM orremainLingM a member of the Communist 7arty of the 7hilippines and@or its successor or of anysubversion association as defined in sections two and three hereof. . . . A 6 Eogically, the military couldnot have nown that =ural, at the time he was taen, was a member of the 0ew 7eopleGs rmy because

he was not performing any over act that he was truly, a rebel. Indeed, it had to tae a AverificationA 6 beforehe could be identified as allegedly a member of the underground army. 2nder these circumstances, I amhard put to say that he was committing subversion when he was arrested, assuming that he was guilty ofsubversion, for purposes of a warrantless arrest.

A5vert actA is made up of ALeMvery act, movement, deed and word of theLaccusedM,A 7 indicating intent to accomplish a criminal ob+ective. =ural, at the time hewas arrested, was lying in a hospital bed. This is not the overt act contemplated by law.

2nder the ule above69uoted, the person must have either been apprehended in fla"ranti (firstparagraph) or after the act, provided that the peace officer has Apersonal nowledgeA that he, thesuspect, is guilty. (second paragraph.) s I stated, =ural was not caught in the act. oreover, what

the egional Intelligence 5perations 2nit of the Capital Command (I526C7C5) had in itshands was a mere Aconfidential information.A I do not thin that this is the personal nowledgereferred to by the second paragraph. 8 7lainly and simply, it is hearsay.

The rule, furthermore, on warrantless arrest is an exceptional one. >y its language, it may beexercised only in the most urgent cases and when the guilt of an offender is plain and evident. *hatI thin we have here is purely and simply, the military taing the law in its hands.



>y stamping validity to olando =uralGs warrantless arrest, I am afraid that the ma+ority has set avery dangerous precedent. *ith all due respect, my brethren has accorded the military a blanetauthority to pic up any <uan, 7edro, and aria without a warrant for the simple reason thatsubversion is supposed to be a continuing offense.

That olando =ural was arrested for being a member of the 0ew 7eopleGs rmyA 9 is furthermore to

me, a hasty statement. It has yet to be established that =ural is indeed a member of the Communist7artyGs military arm. nd unless proven guilty, he is presumed, and must be presumed most of all by thisCourt, to be innocent.

The ma+ority also says that 0a&eas corp#s is moot and academic because =ural has been convictedand is serving sentence. I liewise tae exception. It has been held that& AThe writ may be grantedupon a +udgment already final.A 10

The writ of liberty is a high prerogative writ. 11 indication of due process is its historic office. 1*

/.. 0os. 8?#8$68-

In the case of *ilfredo >uenaobra, the ma+ority avers that he had Amanifested his desire to stay inthe 7C6I07 stocade,A 1- for which 0a&eas corp#s has supposedly become moot and academic. I am notconvinced that that is reason enough to dismiss 0a&eas corp#s as moot and academic. It is the duty ofthis Court, in my opinion, to mae sure that >uenaobra has made his choice freely and voluntarily.7ersonally, I find it indeed strange why he should prefer to stay in +ail than go scot6free.

There is further no doubt that >uenaobraGs petition is one impressed with a public interest. In onecase 1( we denied a motion to withdraw a petition for 0a&eas corp#s in view of its far6reaching importanceto the motion, I do not see how we should act differently, perhaps even insouciantly, here, especially sinceit involves persons who thin and believe differently from the rest of us.

>oth >uenaobra and melia o9ue supposedly admitted that they were raning officers of theCommunist 7arty of the 7hilippines. ccording to the ma+ority, >uenaobra and o9ue are bound by

their admissions. 15

That both parties had admitted to be members of the Communist 7arty of the 7hilippines (the0ational 2nited 3ront Commission) is a naed contention of the military. The fact that it has not beencontroverted, in my view, does not +ustify the coupleGs arrest without warrant. *orse, by relying onthe bare word of the military, this very Court has, to all intents and purposes, condemned the duo fora crime (subversion and@or illegal possession of firearms) the bone of contention, precisely, below.

/.. 0os. 8?#8%68?

I also find the warrantless arrests of =omingo Konuevo and amon Casiple to be contrary to law.That they are Aadmittedly members of the standing committee of the 023CA 16 and that Asubversive

materialsA 17 and unlicensed firearms were found in their possession, are, lie >uenaobraGs and o9ueGscases, barren claims of the military. I also fear that by the ma+orityGs strong language (that Konuevo andCasiple are admitted 02C3 officers) the ma+ority has pronounced the petitioners guilty, when the lowercourts have yet to sit in +udgment. I thin we should be the last to preempt the decision of the trial courts.*e would have set to naught the presumption of innocence accused persons en+oy.

/.. 0o. 8%$1-



*ith respect to the case of icy 5caya, I am afraid that I am inclined towards the same conclusion.There was basis at the outset to say that 5caya was probably guilty of illegal possession offirearms. s I have observed, a warrantless arrest must be predicated upon the existence of a crimebeing actually committed or having been committed. *hat I find here, rather, is nothing less than asuccessful fishing expedition conducted by the military upon an unwary citi!en. I am 9uite distressedto note that this is still possible under a supposed democracy.

/.. 0o. 8#-

=eogracias Fspiritu was fast asleep in his house when he was placed under arrest. 3or the life ofme, I can not figure out how one can be piced upon in oneGs own home and held moments laterwithout a warrant of arrest.

Fspiritu was allegedly guilty of inciting to sedition as a result of a speech delivered in a pressconference at the 0ational 7ress Club on 0ovember -$, $488. :e was, however, arrested the dayafter, 0ovember --, $488. 2nder these circumstances, it eludes me how an arrest without a warrantcould be +ustified, either under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the ule on warrantless arrests.

The ma+ority avers that since an information had been filed with the court, FspirituGs detention, isallegedly +ustifiable. The 9uestion is whether or not an information is an authority to hold a person incustody. 2nder the ules, an information means Aan accusation in writing charging a person with anoffense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court.A 18 It is not, however, an order to eep oneunder detention.

/.. 0o. 81%%-

The offense for which 0arciso 0a!areno is being held the fatal shooting of omulo >unye II was committed on =ecember $?, $488. It was, however, only on =ecember -8, $488 that the policecollared a suspect, amil egala, who subse9uently pointed to 0a!areno as his accomplice. It alsoescapes me how 0a!areno, under these circumstances, could have been validly put under arrestwithout a warrant or the existence of the circumstance described under either paragraph (a) or (b) ofthe ule above69uoted& The crime had long been committed prior to the arrest .

/.. 0os. 8$#1' 8?#8$68-' 8?#8%68?' 8%$1-'8#- H 81%%-' 7ostscripts

The ma+ority has disposed of these cases on the bedroc of what I view as doctrines that have losttheir luster&

$. The teaching of Garcia-3adilla . Enrile, 19 which held that subversion is a continuing offense'

-. The ruling in la"an . Enrile. *0

I also find, for reasons to be set forth hereinafter, a glossing over of the fundamental rights of thepetitioners under the Constitution in the authoritiesG handling of the petitionersG cases.

I hold that Garcia-3adilla is no longer good law under the present Constitution. Two reasonspersuade me. 3irst, it is repugnant to due process of law. (AThe arrest, therefore, need not follow theusual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which re9uire the determination by a +udge of theexistence of probable cause before the issuance of a +udicial warrant of arrest and the granting ofbail if the offense is bailable.A *1 2nder the $48 Constitution, not even ALaM state of martial law



suspendLsM the operation of Lthe CharterM. . .A ** "econd, it leaves the liberty of citi!ens to the whim of oneman (A5n these occasions Lthe existence of a state of emergencyM, the 7resident taes absolutecommand, for the very life of the 0ation and its government, which, incidentally, includes the courts, is ingrave peril. In so doing, the 7resident is answerable only to his conscience, the people and to /od. 3ortheir part, in giving him the supreme mandate as their 7resident, the people can only trust and pray that,giving him their own loyalty and without patriotism, the 7resident will not fail them.A *- ) 2nder the Charternow prevailing, the Chief Fxecutive shares, to a certain extent, the exercise of emergency powers, withCongress. *(

s a law advocate under the regime of arcos, I had challenged the soundness of Garcia-3adilla. Idoubted whether it could stand up under the aegis of the $4% Constitution. I still doubt whether itcan withstand scrutiny under the $48 Constitution.

The ma+ority also fails to point out that six days after /arcia67adilla was handed down, the CourtpromulgatedMorales$ /r . . Enrile, *5 a case that in my view has significantly whittled down Garcia-3adilla<s very esse. In that case, r. <ustice :ermogenes Concepcion, <r. wrote for the ma+ority&

xxx xxx xxx

$1. fter a person is arrested . . . without a warrant . . . the proper complaint orinformation against him must be filed with the courts of +ustice within the timeprescribed by law. . .

$. 3ailure of the public officer to do so without any valid reason would constitute aviolation of rt. $-#, evised 7enal Code, as amended. nd the person detainedwould be entitled to be released on a writ of 0a&eas corp#s, unless he is detainedunder subsisting process issued by a competent court.*6

I also gather from the records that none of the petitioners had been& ($) informed of their right toremain silent' and (-) to have competent and independent counsel. *7

s I said, the ma+ority is denying 0a&eas corp#s on self6serving claims of the military that thepetitioners (=ural, >uenaobra, o9ue, Konuevo, and Casiple) are members of the Communist7arty of the 7hilippines and that they have supposedly confessed to be in fact members of theoutlawed organi!ation. The 9uestion that has not been answered is whether or not these supposedconfessions are admissible, for purposes of a warrantless arrest, as evidence of guilt, in the absenceof any showing that they were apprised of their constitutional rights. I am perturbed by the silence ofthe ma+ority. I am distressed because as we held in one case, violation of the Constitution diveststhe court of +urisdiction and entitles the accused to 0a&eas corp#s. *8

ccording to the ma+ority, a Are6examination or re6appraisal . . . of the Ilagan doctrine is not the answer.A *9 In my considered opinion, la"an . Enrile -0 does not rightfullybelong in the volumes of 7hilippine +urisprudence. In that case, the petitioners, three =avao6based

lawyers, were held by virtue of a simple information (Athe petition herein has been rendered moot andacademic by virtue of the filing of an Information against them for ebellion . . . and the issuance of a*arrant of rrest against themA -1 ) without any preliminary investigation (examination) having beenpreviously conducted (to +ustify the issuance of a warrant). i=t=c-a>sl s I have stated, an information is not awarrant of arrest. The fact that an information exists does not mean that a warrant will be issued.

ccused persons have the right of preliminary investigation (examination). -* It forms part and parcelof due process of law . --



I find the ma+orityGs reliance on .!. . ilson, -( an ancient ($4B#) decision, inapt and untenable. Inthat case, the accused 0ad &een served with a warrant and thereafter taen into custody. The 9uestionthat faced the Court was whether or not the warrant was valid, amid the accusedGs charges that the +udgewho issued it did not examine the complainant under oath. *e held that the 9uery was academic,because the accused had already pleaded, and the case had entered the trial stage.

The cases at bar are not on all fours. :ere, no warrant has been issued. I submit that in that event,the petitioners are entitled to freedom by way of the writ of liberty.

xxx xxx xxx

The apprehensions in 9uestion chronicle in my mind the increasing pattern of arrests and detentionin the country without the sanction of a +udicial decree. 3our years ago at AF="A, and many yearsbefore it, although with much fewer of us, we valiantly challenged a dictator and all the evils hisregime had stood for& repression of civil liberties and trampling on of human rights. *e set up apopular government, restored its honored institutions, and crafted a democratic constitution thatrests on the guideposts of peace and freedom. I feel that with this CourtGs ruling, we have fritteredaway, by a stroe of the pen, what we had so painstaingly built in four years of democracy, andalmost twenty years of struggle against tyranny.

It also occurs to me that I am interposing what looms as a 9uixotic outloo of 7hilippine law onwarrantless arrests and its implications on liberty. It is an impression that does not surprise me.;uixotic as they may seem, and modesty aside, my views reflect a strong bias on my part forgedby years of experience and sharpened by a painful and lonely struggle for freedom and +ustice toward men and women who challenge settled beliefs. If this dissent can not gain any adherent fornow, let it nevertheless go on record as a plea to posterity and an appeal for tolerance of opinionswith which we not only disagree, but opinions we loathe.

I feel it is my duty to articulate this dissent.

S"" O#o#'

CRU<, J., dissenting and concurring&

I dissent insofar as the ponencia affirms the ruling in Garcia-3adilla . Fnrile that subversion is acontinuing offense, to +ustify the arrest without warrant of any person at an+ time as long as theauthorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion of the offense. That is adangerous doctrine. person may be arrested when he is doing the most innocent acts, as when heis only washing his hands, or taing his supper, or even when he is sleeping, on the ground that heis committing the AcontinuingA offense of subversion. Eibertarians were appalled when that doctrinewas imposed during the arcos regime. I am alarmed that even now this new Court is willing to

sustain it. I strongly urge my colleagues to discard it altogether as one of the disgraceful vestiges ofthe past dictatorship and uphold the rule guaranteeing the right of the people against unreasonablesearches and sei!ures. *e can do no less if we are really to re+ect the past oppression and commitourselves to the true freedom. Fven if it be argued that the military should be given every support inour fight against subversion, I maintain that that fight must be waged honorably, in accordance withthe >ill of ights. I do not believe that in fighting the enemy we must adopt the ways of the enemy,which are precisely what we are fighting a"ainst . I submit that our more important motivation shouldbe what are we fighting for .



Fxcept for this reservation and appeal, I concur with the decision.

FEICIANO, J., concurring&

I concur in the result reached in each of the eight (8) consolidated 7etitions for Ha&eas Corp#s. tthe same time, I have some reservations concerning certain statements made by the Court in /..0o. 8$#1 (2mil, et al. v. amos) (7art I of the =ecision) and in /.. 0o. 8#- (Fspiritu v. Eim)(7art I of the =ecision).

In /.. 0o. 8$#1 (2mil, et al. v. amos), the per c#riam opinion states categorically that& Athecrimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes oroffenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaultsagainst the "tate and are in the nature of contin#in" crimes.A The ma+ority here relies upon Garcia-3adilla . Enrile ($-$ "C ?- L$48%M). The ma+ority there made the same e9ually broad statementbut without any visible effort to examine the basis, scope and meaning of such a sweepingstatement. Garcia-3adilla did not even identify the specific offenses which it regarded as Ain the

nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offensesA ($-$ "C at ?84).It appears to me that in /.. 0o. 8#- (Fspiritu v. Eim) (7art I of the =ecision), the perc#riam opinion has in effect included the offense of Ainciting to seditionA penali!ed under rticle $?-of the evised 7enal Code as a Acontinuing offenseA under the capacious blanet of the ma+orityopinion in Garcia-3adilla, at least for purposes of determining the legality of the arrest without awarrant of petitioner =eogracias Fspiritu.

I would respectfully recall to my learned colleagues in the Court that Ainciting to seditionA is defined in rticle $?- of the evised 7enal Code in terms of speech 1 and that conse9uently it is importantconstantly do distinguish between speech which is protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom ofspeech and of the press and speech which may constitutionally be regarded as violative of rticle $?- ofthe evised 7enal Code. 7recisely because speech which the police authorities might regard as seditiousor as criminal inciting to sedition may well turn out to be only an exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed

freedom, I would submit that we must apply the concept of Acontinuing offenseA narrowly for purposes ofapplication of "ection #(b), ule $$% of the evised ules of Court.

In my view, the very broad statement made about Acontinuing crimesA in /.. 0o. 8$#1 (2mil, et alv. amos) constitutes dict#m, considering that olando =ural and >ernardo Itucal, <r. had alreadybeen tried in the court below for Adouble murder, etc.A and found guilty of the offense charged,sentenced accordingly, and at least in the case of olando =ural, service of the sentence imposedupon him by the trial court had already begun.

"imilarly, in /.. 0o. 8#- (Fspiritu v. Eim) the statement that the arrest of petitioner Fspirituwithout a warrant was in accordance with the provisions of "ection #(b), ule $$% of the evisedules of Court does not appear strictly necessary, considering that the petitioner had already been

charged in a valid information filed with the competent court, which court had presumably issued anorder for his commitment, and considering further that he is entitled to bail.

There is thus no obstacle, to my mind, to a careful examination of the doctrine of Acontinuing crimesAas applied to such offenses as subversion and inciting to sedition and possibly other offenses, insome future case where that issue is raised s9uarely and is unavoidable.

Cortes$ /.$ conc#rs.



SARMIENTO, J., dissenting&

I beg to differ from my brethren. I submit that 0a&eas corp#s lies in all eight cases.

/.. 0o. 8$#1

The ma+ority says that olando =uralGs arrest without a warrant is lawful under the ules of Court,which reads&




(c) *hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penalestablishment or place where he is serving final +udgment or temporarily confinedwhile his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from oneconfinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall beforthwith delivered to the nearest police station or +ail, and he shall be proceeded against inaccordance with ule $$-, "ection . 1

Aolando =ural,A so states the ma+ority, Awas arrested for being a member of the 0ew 7eopleGs rmy

(07), an outlawed subversive organi!ation,A * and that ALsMubversion being a contin#in" offense, thearrest of olando =ural without a warrant is +ustified as it can be said that he was committing an offensewhen arrested.A -

s I said, I beg to differ.

3irst, olando =ural was charged with A=ouble urder with ssault upon gents of uthority.A ( If hehad been guilty of subversion the offense for which he was supposedly arrested ia a warrantlessarrest subversion was the logical crime with which he should have been charged.

The authorities could not have rightly arrested him for subversion on account of the slay of the twoC7C5 soldiers, a possible basis for violation of the nti6"ubversion ct, because as the ma+ority

points out, Ahe was not arrested while in the act of shooting LthemM . . . LnMor was he arrested +ustafter the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a da+ after the said shooting incident.A 5

"econd, I do not believe that a warrantless (or citi!enGs) arrest is possible in case of subversion inthe absence of any overt act that would +ustify the authorities to act. A"ubversion,A as the term isnown in law, means Anowingly, wilfully and &+ oert acts affiliatLingM LoneselfM with, becomLingM orremainLingM a member of the Communist 7arty of the 7hilippines and@or its successor or of anysubversion association as defined in sections two and three hereof. . . . A 6 Eogically, the military couldnot have nown that =ural, at the time he was taen, was a member of the 0ew 7eopleGs rmy because



he was not performing any over act that he was truly, a rebel. Indeed, it had to tae a AverificationA 6 beforehe could be identified as allegedly a member of the underground army. 2nder these circumstances, I amhard put to say that he was committing subversion when he was arrested, assuming that he was guilty ofsubversion, for purposes of a warrantless arrest.

A5vert actA is made up of ALeMvery act, movement, deed and word of the

LaccusedM,A7

indicating intent to accomplish a criminal ob+ective. =ural, at the time hewas arrested, was lying in a hospital bed. This is not the overt act contemplated by law.

2nder the ule above69uoted, the person must have either been apprehended in fla"ranti (firstparagraph) or after the act, provided that the peace officer has Apersonal nowledgeA that he, thesuspect, is guilty. (second paragraph.) s I stated, =ural was not caught in the act. oreover, whatthe egional Intelligence 5perations 2nit of the Capital Command (I526C7C5) had in itshands was a mere Aconfidential information.A I do not thin that this is the personal nowledgereferred to by the second paragraph. 8 7lainly and simply, it is hearsay.

The rule, furthermore, on warrantless arrest is an exceptional one. >y its language, it may beexercised only in the most urgent cases and when the guilt of an offender is plain and evident. *hatI thin we have here is purely and simply, the military taing the law in its hands.

>y stamping validity to olando =uralGs warrantless arrest, I am afraid that the ma+ority has set avery dangerous precedent. *ith all due respect, my brethren has accorded the military a blanetauthority to pic up any <uan, 7edro, and aria without a warrant for the simple reason thatsubversion is supposed to be a continuing offense.

That olando =ural was arrested for being a member of the 0ew 7eopleGs rmyA 9 is furthermore tome, a hasty statement. It has yet to be established that =ural is indeed a member of the Communist7artyGs military arm. nd unless proven guilty, he is presumed, and must be presumed most of all by thisCourt, to be innocent.

The ma+ority also says that 0a&eas corp#s is moot and academic because =ural has been convicted

and is serving sentence. I liewise tae exception. It has been held that& AThe writ may be grantedupon a +udgment already final.A 10

The writ of liberty is a high prerogative writ. 11 indication of due process is its historic office. 1*

/.. 0os. 8?#8$68-

In the case of *ilfredo >uenaobra, the ma+ority avers that he had Amanifested his desire to stay inthe 7C6I07 stocade,A 1- for which 0a&eas corp#s has supposedly become moot and academic. I am notconvinced that that is reason enough to dismiss 0a&eas corp#s as moot and academic. It is the duty ofthis Court, in my opinion, to mae sure that >uenaobra has made his choice freely and voluntarily.7ersonally, I find it indeed strange why he should prefer to stay in +ail than go scot6free.

There is further no doubt that >uenaobraGs petition is one impressed with a public interest. In onecase 1( we denied a motion to withdraw a petition for 0a&eas corp#s in view of its far6reaching importanceto the motion, I do not see how we should act differently, perhaps even insouciantly, here, especially sinceit involves persons who thin and believe differently from the rest of us.

>oth >uenaobra and melia o9ue supposedly admitted that they were raning officers of theCommunist 7arty of the 7hilippines. ccording to the ma+ority, >uenaobra and o9ue are bound bytheir admissions. 15



That both parties had admitted to be members of the Communist 7arty of the 7hilippines (the0ational 2nited 3ront Commission) is a naed contention of the military. The fact that it has not beencontroverted, in my view, does not +ustify the coupleGs arrest without warrant. *orse, by relying onthe bare word of the military, this very Court has, to all intents and purposes, condemned the duo fora crime (subversion and@or illegal possession of firearms) the bone of contention, precisely, below.

/.. 0os. 8?#8%68?

I also find the warrantless arrests of =omingo Konuevo and amon Casiple to be contrary to law.That they are Aadmittedly members of the standing committee of the 023CA 16 and that AsubversivematerialsA 17 and unlicensed firearms were found in their possession, are, lie >uenaobraGs and o9ueGscases, barren claims of the military. I also fear that by the ma+orityGs strong language (that Konuevo andCasiple are admitted 02C3 officers) the ma+ority has pronounced the petitioners guilty, when the lowercourts have yet to sit in +udgment. I thin we should be the last to preempt the decision of the trial courts.*e would have set to naught the presumption of innocence accused persons en+oy.

/.. 0o. 8%$1-

*ith respect to the case of icy 5caya, I am afraid that I am inclined towards the same conclusion.There was basis at the outset to say that 5caya was probably guilty of illegal possession offirearms. s I have observed, a warrantless arrest must be predicated upon the existence of a crimebeing actually committed or having been committed. *hat I find here, rather, is nothing less than asuccessful fishing expedition conducted by the military upon an unwary citi!en. I am 9uite distressedto note that this is still possible under a supposed democracy.

/.. 0o. 8#-

=eogracias Fspiritu was fast asleep in his house when he was placed under arrest. 3or the life ofme, I can not figure out how one can be piced upon in oneGs own home and held moments laterwithout a warrant of arrest.

Fspiritu was allegedly guilty of inciting to sedition as a result of a speech delivered in a pressconference at the 0ational 7ress Club on 0ovember -$, $488. :e was, however, arrested the dayafter, 0ovember --, $488. 2nder these circumstances, it eludes me how an arrest without a warrantcould be +ustified, either under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the ule on warrantless arrests.

The ma+ority avers that since an information had been filed with the court, FspirituGs detention, isallegedly +ustifiable. The 9uestion is whether or not an information is an authority to hold a person incustody. 2nder the ules, an information means Aan accusation in writing charging a person with anoffense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court.A 18 It is not, however, an order to eep oneunder detention.

/.. 0o. 81%%-

The offense for which 0arciso 0a!areno is being held the fatal shooting of omulo >unye II was committed on =ecember $?, $488. It was, however, only on =ecember -8, $488 that the policecollared a suspect, amil egala, who subse9uently pointed to 0a!areno as his accomplice. It alsoescapes me how 0a!areno, under these circumstances, could have been validly put under arrestwithout a warrant or the existence of the circumstance described under either paragraph (a) or (b) ofthe ule above69uoted& The crime had long been committed prior to the arrest .



/.. 0os. 8$#1' 8?#8$68-' 8?#8%68?' 8%$1-'8#- H 81%%-' 7ostscripts

The ma+ority has disposed of these cases on the bedroc of what I view as doctrines that have losttheir luster&

$. The teaching of Garcia-3adilla . Enrile, 19 which held that subversion is a continuing offense'

-. The ruling in la"an . Enrile. *0

I also find, for reasons to be set forth hereinafter, a glossing over of the fundamental rights of thepetitioners under the Constitution in the authoritiesG handling of the petitionersG cases.

I hold that Garcia-3adilla is no longer good law under the present Constitution. Two reasonspersuade me. 3irst, it is repugnant to due process of law. (AThe arrest, therefore, need not follow theusual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which re9uire the determination by a +udge of theexistence of probable cause before the issuance of a +udicial warrant of arrest and the granting ofbail if the offense is bailable.A *1 2nder the $48 Constitution, not even ALaM state of martial law

suspendLsM the operation of Lthe CharterM. . .A ** "econd, it leaves the liberty of citi!ens to the whim of oneman (A5n these occasions Lthe existence of a state of emergencyM, the 7resident taes absolutecommand, for the very life of the 0ation and its government, which, incidentally, includes the courts, is ingrave peril. In so doing, the 7resident is answerable only to his conscience, the people and to /od. 3ortheir part, in giving him the supreme mandate as their 7resident, the people can only trust and pray that,giving him their own loyalty and without patriotism, the 7resident will not fail them.A *- ) 2nder the Charternow prevailing, the Chief Fxecutive shares, to a certain extent, the exercise of emergency powers, withCongress. *(

s a law advocate under the regime of arcos, I had challenged the soundness of Garcia-3adilla. Idoubted whether it could stand up under the aegis of the $4% Constitution. I still doubt whether itcan withstand scrutiny under the $48 Constitution.

The ma+ority also fails to point out that six days after /arcia67adilla was handed down, the CourtpromulgatedMorales$ /r . . Enrile, *5 a case that in my view has significantly whittled down Garcia-3adilla<s very esse. In that case, r. <ustice :ermogenes Concepcion, <r. wrote for the ma+ority&

xxx xxx xxx

$1. fter a person is arrested . . . without a warrant . . . the proper complaint orinformation against him must be filed with the courts of +ustice within the timeprescribed by law. . .

$. 3ailure of the public officer to do so without any valid reason would constitute aviolation of rt. $-#, evised 7enal Code, as amended. nd the person detained

would be entitled to be released on a writ of 0a&eas corp#s, unless he is detainedunder subsisting process issued by a competent court.*6

I also gather from the records that none of the petitioners had been& ($) informed of their right toremain silent' and (-) to have competent and independent counsel. *7

s I said, the ma+ority is denying 0a&eas corp#s on self6serving claims of the military that thepetitioners (=ural, >uenaobra, o9ue, Konuevo, and Casiple) are members of the Communist7arty of the 7hilippines and that they have supposedly confessed to be in fact members of the



outlawed organi!ation. The 9uestion that has not been answered is whether or not these supposedconfessions are admissible, for purposes of a warrantless arrest, as evidence of guilt, in the absenceof any showing that they were apprised of their constitutional rights. I am perturbed by the silence ofthe ma+ority. I am distressed because as we held in one case, violation of the Constitution diveststhe court of +urisdiction and entitles the accused to 0a&eas corp#s. *8

ccording to the ma+ority, a Are6examination or re6appraisal . . . of the Ilagan doctrine is not the answer.A *9 In my considered opinion, la"an . Enrile -0 does not rightfullybelong in the volumes of 7hilippine +urisprudence. In that case, the petitioners, three =avao6basedlawyers, were held by virtue of a simple information (Athe petition herein has been rendered moot andacademic by virtue of the filing of an Information against them for ebellion . . . and the issuance of a*arrant of rrest against themA -1 ) without any preliminary investigation (examination) having beenpreviously conducted (to +ustify the issuance of a warrant). i=t=c-a>sl s I have stated, an information is not awarrant of arrest. The fact that an information exists does not mean that a warrant will be issued.

ccused persons have the right of preliminary investigation (examination). -* It forms part and parcelof due process of law . --

I find the ma+orityGs reliance on .!. . ilson, -( an ancient ($4B#) decision, inapt and untenable. Inthat case, the accused 0ad &een served with a warrant and thereafter taen into custody. The 9uestionthat faced the Court was whether or not the warrant was valid, amid the accusedGs charges that the +udgewho issued it did not examine the complainant under oath. *e held that the 9uery was academic,because the accused had already pleaded, and the case had entered the trial stage.

The cases at bar are not on all fours. :ere, no warrant has been issued. I submit that in that event,the petitioners are entitled to freedom by way of the writ of liberty.

xxx xxx xxx

The apprehensions in 9uestion chronicle in my mind the increasing pattern of arrests and detentionin the country without the sanction of a +udicial decree. 3our years ago at AF="A, and many years

before it, although with much fewer of us, we valiantly challenged a dictator and all the evils hisregime had stood for& repression of civil liberties and trampling on of human rights. *e set up apopular government, restored its honored institutions, and crafted a democratic constitution thatrests on the guideposts of peace and freedom. I feel that with this CourtGs ruling, we have fritteredaway, by a stroe of the pen, what we had so painstaingly built in four years of democracy, andalmost twenty years of struggle against tyranny.

It also occurs to me that I am interposing what looms as a 9uixotic outloo of 7hilippine law onwarrantless arrests and its implications on liberty. It is an impression that does not surprise me.;uixotic as they may seem, and modesty aside, my views reflect a strong bias on my part forgedby years of experience and sharpened by a painful and lonely struggle for freedom and +ustice toward men and women who challenge settled beliefs. If this dissent can not gain any adherent fornow, let it nevertheless go on record as a plea to posterity and an appeal for tolerance of opinionswith which we not only disagree, but opinions we loathe.

I feel it is my duty to articulate this dissent.

Foo#o'

$ 1% 7hil. --$.



- Nacarias vs. Cru!, /.. 0o. E6-#844, 0ovember -4, $414, %B "C -8.

% /arcia67adilla vs. Fnrile, /.. 0o. 1$%88, pril -B, $48%, $-$ "C ?-, ?886?84.

? ? 7hil. %$, %-#.

# Eoren!o vs. c Coy, $# 7hil. ##4.

1 Rollo of /.. 0os. 8?#8%68?, p. $B#.

7etition, 0os. ? to 8, inclusive.

8 eturn of *rit.

4 Fxhibit -.

$B Fxhibit $.

$$ Fxhibit ?.

$- 18 7hil. ?$#.

$% /.. 0o. B?8, 5ct. -$, $48#, $%4 "C %?4.

$? ctually, the re9uirement in the la"an case doctrine that a warrant of arrest ororder of commitment should be issued een after the information has been filedagainst the detained person, would seem s#perfl#o#s. s aptly stated in the earlycase of 2.". vs. *ilson, ? 7hil. %8$, Awhere a person who has been legally arrestedwithout a warrant was actually before a court, that court had a right to proceedagainst him without in the first place issuing a warrant for his detention.A

$# /.. 0os. 1$B$1 and 1$$B, pril -1, $48%, $-$ "C #%8, #1%.

3FEICI05, /., concurring&

$ rt. $?-. ncitin" to sedition. The penalty of prision correcional in its maximumperiod and a fine not exceeding -,BBB pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,without taing any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to theaccomplishments of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speec0es$

proclamations$ 2ritin"s$ em&lems cartoons$ &anners$ or other representationstending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utterseditious2ords or speec0es$ 2rite$ p#&lis0$ or circ#late scurrilous libels against the/overnment of epublic of the 7hilippines, or any of the duly constituted authoritiesthereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing thefunctions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, orwhich lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb thepeace of the community, the safety and order of the /overnment, or who shallnowingly conceal such evil practices. (s amended by Com. ct 0o. -B-).

"IF0T5, <., dissenting opinion&



$ 2EF" 53 C52T, ule $$%, sec. #

- =ecision, .

% !#pra' emphasis in the original

? !#pra, 1.

# !#pra, 1' emphasis in the original.

1 Fxec. 5rder 0o. -1, sec. %' emphasis ours.

Cramer v. 2."., %-# 2.". $, %? ($4??), a treason case.

8 7rior to its amendments, paragraph (b) re9uired merely Areasonable groundA to +ustify a warrantless arrest. !ee 2EF" 53 C52T ($41?), ule $$%, sec. 1, par.(b). The amendments was made to stop warrantless arrests based on suspicion andhearsay. !ee 3FI, $48# 2EF" 50 CII0E 75CF=2F, -B ($48).

4 =ecision, s#pra, .

$B Chave! v. Court of ppeals, 0o. E6-4$14, ugust $4, $418, -? "C 11%,18?' see Castro, /., Concurring, citin" 3ay v. 0oia, %- 2" %4$ ($41%).

$$ !#pra, 18%.

$- !#pra, 14B.

$% =ecision, s#pra $?.

$? 9uino, <r. v. Fnrile, 0os. E6%##?1, %##%8, %##%4, %##?B, %##?, %###1, %##1,%##$, and %##%, "eptember $, $4?, #4 "C $8%, -?6-?8, citin" among othercases, /on!ales v. Commission on Flections, 0o. E6-8%%, pril $8, $414, - "C8%# and Driveno v. egister of =eeds, 4 7hil. ?1$ ($4?).

$# =ecision, s#pra.

$1 !#pra.

$ !#pra.

$8 2EF" 53 C52T, ule $$B, sec. ?.

$4 0o. 1$%88, pril -B, $48%, $-$ "C ?-.

-B 0o. B?8, 5ctober -$, $48#, $%4 "C %?4.

-$ /arcia67adilla v. Fnrile, s#pra, ?84.

-- C50"T., art. II, sec. $8.



-% /arcia67adilla, s#pra, #B$.

-? C50"T., s#pra.

-# 0os. 1$B$16, pril $1, $48%, $-$ "C #%8.

-1 !#pra, #1B, #1-.

- C50"T., art. III, sec. $-.

-8 briol v. :omeres, 8? 7hil. #-# ($4?4).

-4 =ecision, s#pra, -8.

%B !#pra.

%$ !#pra, %1?6%1#.

%- Ilagan v. Fnrile, s#pra, %8?, Teehanee, /., =issenting.

%% !#pra.

%? ? 7hil. %$1 (arch -?, $4B#).

Umil vs Ramos, 187 SCRA 311

Documents

Transcript of Umil vs Ramos, 187 SCRA 311