37.5 Umil V Ramos MR (Sy)
37.5 Umil V Ramos MR (Sy)
37.5 Umil V Ramos MR (Sy)
Ramos
G.R. No. (various-see below) Oct. 3, 1991 Per Curiam
Article 3 – Section 2 Created By: Justin Sy
Petitioners Respondents
G.R. # 81567 In the matter for the petition for Fidel V. Ramos, Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig.
habeas corpus of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, Gen. Ramon Montano, Brig. Gen. Alexander
and Renato Villanueva. Manolita O. Umil and Aguirre
Nicanor P. Dural, Felicitas V. Sese, petitioners.
G.R. # 84581-82 Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Gen. Renato de Villa and Gen. Ramon Montano
Buenaobra
G.R. # 84583-84 In the matter for the petition for Hon. Fidel V. Ramos, Gen. Renato S. de Villa,
habeas corpus of Atty. Domingo T. Anonuevo Col. Evaristo Carino, Lt. Col. Rex D Piad, T/Sgt.
and Ramon Casiple. Domingo T. Anonuevo and Conrado de Torres, S/Sgt. Arnold Durian, and
Ramon Casiple, petitioners. Commanding Officer, PC-INP Detention Center,
Camp Crame, Quezon City.
G.R. # 83162 In the matter of the application for Brig. Gen. Alexander Aguirre, Col. Hercules
habeas corpus of Vicky A. Ocaya and Danny Cataluna, Col. Nestor Mariano.
Rivera. Virgilio A. Ocaya, petitioner
G.R. # 85727 In the matter of application for Brig. Gen. Alfredo S. Lim, Col. Ricardo Reyes
habeas corpus of Deogracias Espiritu, petitioner
G.R. # 86332 In the matter of the petition for The station commander of the Muntinglupa
habeas corpus of Narciso S. Nazareno. Alfredo Police Station, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila,
Nazareno, petitioner. P/Sgt. Jacinto Medina, P/Sgt. Levi Soledad, and
P/Sgt. Mauro Arojado
Recit Ready Summary
The SC simply reiterates the previous decision. Subversion1 is a continuing offense, and thus
warrantless arrests are allowable as subversion can be said to be on-going at the time of the arrest.
There is no reason to reexamine the doctrine of continuing offenses. However, the SC emphasizes
that mere suspicion of membership in CPP/NPA is not a valid ground for warrantless arrest.
Facts of the Case
This is reconsideration of the Court’s Decision dated 7/9/1990. At the outset, the SC emphasizes
that mere suspicion of membership in CPP or NPA is not a valid ground for warrantless arrest. The
SC also emphasizes that habeas corpus is remedy for illegal detention; by implication, if arrest and
detention are legal, then habeas corpus will not lie.
Petitions Ruling
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. Dural Petition – For purposes of arrest, Dural did not cease to be a member of the NPA simply
because, at the time of his arrest, he was undergoing medical treatment at the hospital. “It is in
this sense that subversion like rebellion (or insurrection) is perceived here as a continuing
offense. Unlike other so-called ‘common’ offenses, i.e. adultery, murder, arson, etc., which
generally end upon their commission, subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological
base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and violence until the
overriding objective of overthrowing organized government is attained.” 2 He was arrested for
probable cause, as the arresting officers received confidential information from a reliable source
that a wounded man, identified as Dural, was the killer of 2 soldiers the previous day, and
records do not show that the arresting officers were motivated by ill-will (requisites of probable
cause and good faith met).
2. Roque petition, Anonueva petition, Ocaya petition – They were searched pursuant to search
warrants and caught in flagrante delicto with unlicensed firearms, explosives, ammunition,
1
I assume that you’ve read the digest of the original case. All shortcut terms here are the same as the ones there.
2
Copied verbatim from page 262. Very important; this is the doctrine of continuing crimes. Umil v. Ramos, 202
SCRA 252, 262 (1991).
and/or subversive document in the possession. Additionally, they were identified by former
comrades as CPP/NPA members, and valid Informations were filed against them. The
circumstances of their respective arrests show that the arresting officers had probable cause to
arrest them.
3. Espiritu petition – Espiritu was arrested for, in the perception of the arresting officers, inciting to
sedition. The SC has tilted the scale in favor of authority only for purposes of arrest and not
conviction3. Note also that supervening events have made this petition moot and academic, as
Espiritu requested for re-investigation, and as the peace officers did not appear, his case was
provisionally dismissed and his bail bond cancelled.
4. Nazareno petition – Although the killing happened 14 days earlier, the SC holds that,
considering that the police had only received the information that Nazareno was involved the
day before his (Nazareno’s) arrest, arrest had to be made promptly, even without warrant, to
prevent possible flight4. Further, not only was an Information filed against Nazareno, but he was
subsequently convicted of the murder and is currently appealing his case before the CA.
5. Some last remarks – The SC finds no compelling reason to disturb the Garcia v. Enrile and
Ilagan v. Enrile doctrines (of continuing crimes). Also, the SC reminds that mere suspicion that
the accused is a member of the CPP or the NPA is not enough. The SC upheld all arrests as
they all met the conditions of probable cause and good faith of arresting officers.
Disposition
Denied with finality
Separate Opinions
C. J. Fernan (concur and dissent): concur in the result, except for Espiritu and Nazareno petitions.
First, in both cases, officers had enough time to get warrants. Second, warrantless arrests are not
allowable if the arresting officers are not sure what law has been violated. Third, inciting to sedition
is not a continuing crime. As to warrantless arrests of those accused of violating the Anti-Subversion
Law, the arresting officer must make sure that the person arrested is a knowing member of the
CPP/NPA, as opposed to a nominal member.
Gutierrez (concur and dissent): concur in the result, except for Dural, Espiritu, and Nazareno
petitions. For the Espiritu case, inciting to sedition is a crime that is complicated enough that it
requires a court warrant. For the Nazareno case, to hold that an arrest because an offense “has in
fact just been committed” when 14 days have lapsed is to stretch the rule to a ridiculous length, and
warrant is required. For the Dural case, join other dissenting Justices that to allow warrantless
arrests for continuing offenses is too wide a grant of authority.
Cruz (separate): concur in the result, except for Dural, Espiritu, and Nazareno petitions. Dissent the
continued observance of the Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile doctrine on continuing offenses. Continuing
offenses doctrine allows for arbitrary arrests. Dural was arrested while undergoing treatment in a
hospital, Espiritu was asleep at the time of his arrest, and Nazareno was arrested 2 weeks after the
offense which he allegedly committed, all warrantless. Arrest must be made immediately after the
offense, or with a warrant.
Feliciano (concur and dissent): concur in the result, dissent in application of continuing crimes
doctrine. Probable cause requires concurrence of 2 factors; that offense has just been committed,
and that the officer has personal knowledge that the one arrested committed the offense. From the
way the majority writes, continuing crimes doctrine replaces personal knowledge, and it should not –
personal knowledge should still be an indispensable requisite to a valid warrantless arrest.
Regalado (separate): in the Nazareno case, personal knowledge was on behalf of Regala, not on
that of the arresting officers. While admittedly the arrest was valid due to presence of probable
cause, in this case, must be more careful in use of rules of arrest
Sarmiento (dissent): reiterate dissent. In the Dural case, subversion requires overt acts, and
information received by the police is second-hand knowledge (hearsay, not personal knowledge).
3
In his Commentary, Fr. Bernas said that “speech which in an officer’s estimation is criminally seditious can justify
warrantless arrest even if upon prosecution the officer is proved wrong. The criminal character of speech is
something that is not easily determined and must await court estimation.” JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY 209 (2009 ed.).
4
A personal opinion: this is a very dangerous statement. Just to prevent possible flight, an officer may arrest
someone even without warrant? When the offense was committed 2 weeks prior?
For the cases of Roque, Buenaobra, Anonueva, Casipile, and Ocaya, they were arrested on tip and
not personal knowledge, and more importantly, the fact that they were NPAs anyway is a bare
contention of the military which the Court is not bound to swallow whole (else it would be abdicating
judicial responsibility). For Espiritu’s case, inciting to sedition is not a continuing offense, and he
was arrested not on the same day but the next. For Nazareno’s case, he was arrested 14 days after
the commission of the offense; this cannot be an offense that was “just committed”. Hold that
Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile and Ilagan v. Enrile have seen their day and can no longer be sustained.