View full case

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL v. FIDEL V. RAMOS

FACTS:

This case involves eight petitions for habeas corpus that were consolidated due to similar issues raised. The petitioners argue that their detention is unlawful as their arrests were made without a warrant and no preliminary investigation was conducted. The respondents assert that the petitioners have been legally arrested and detained based on valid informations filed against them. The Court finds that the petitioners have not been illegally arrested and that their circumstances do not warrant their release on habeas corpus. The Court cites the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court to justify arrests without a warrant and concludes that the arrests of the petitioners were justified in these cases.

In G.R. No. 81567 (Umil vs. Ramos), one of the petitioners, Rolando Dural, was positively identified as the gunman responsible for the killing of two soldiers, leading to his arrest and subsequent filing of an information against him. In this case, a petition for habeas corpus was filed on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and Renato Villanueva. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on February 9, 1988. On February 26, 1988, Umil and Villanueva posted bail and were released. The petition for habeas corpus, with respect to Umil and Villanueva, was considered moot and dismissed. Rolando Dural, on the other hand, was arrested for being a member of the NPA. Although his arrest was without a warrant, it was justified because subversion is a continuing offense and it can be said that Dural was committing an offense at the time of his arrest. Dural was eventually found guilty in a separate criminal case and is serving his sentence.

In a separate case involving Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra, their arrest without a warrant was justified. Buenaobra admitted to being an NPA courier and was found with letters to members of the rebel group. Roque admitted ownership of subversive documents and was in possession of ammunition and a fragmentation grenade without proper permits.

In G.R. No. 77047 (Sabio vs. Sandiganbayan), the arrest of Sabio was justified without a warrant because he was caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime. He was involved in a heated altercation with one Rolando Dural. Additionally, at the time of his apprehension, Sabio was found to be in possession of ammunitions without a license.

In G.R. Nos. 84583-84 (Anonuevo vs. Ramos), the arrest of Anonuevo and Casiple was also justified without a warrant. Both individuals were members of the standing committee of the NUFC and were apprehended in the house of Renato Constantino. They were found in possession of a bag containing subversive materials, as well as firearms and ammunition for which they had no license.

ISSUES:

    • Whether the arrest of Wilfredo Buenaobra, Amelia Roque, Domingo Anonuevo, and Ramon Casiple without a warrant is justified.
    • Whether the charges against Amelia Roque, Domingo Anonuevo, and Ramon Casiple can proceed even without a preliminary investigation.

  3. Whether or not the petitioners have been deprived of their constitutional right to due process.

  4. Whether or not the arrest without a warrant of Vicky Ocaya is justified.

  5. Whether or not the firearms, ammunition, and subversive documents found in the possession of the petitioners belong to them.

  6. Whether the arrest of petitioner Roque without a warrant was unreasonable.

  7. Whether the detention of petitioner Espiritu is justified.

  8. Whether the arrest and detention of petitioner Nazareno is lawful.

  9. Whether the arrest of Narciso Nazareno without a warrant was legal.

  10. Whether the denial of bail to Narciso Nazareno was proper.

  11. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction to inquire into every phase and aspect of a petitioner's detention in habeas corpus cases

  12. Whether or not the petitions should be dismissed

RULING:

    • The arrest of Wilfredo Buenaobra, Amelia Roque, Domingo Anonuevo, and Ramon Casiple without a warrant is justified due to their affiliation with the National United Front Commission (NUFC) of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and possession of firearms and ammunition without license.
    • The charges against Amelia Roque, Domingo Anonuevo, and Ramon Casiple can proceed even without a preliminary investigation as the Rules of Court allows for the filing of an information without a preliminary investigation when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The accused, however, were given the opportunity to request a preliminary investigation but refused to sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

  3. The petitioners cannot claim that they have been deprived of their constitutional right to due process. They did not request a preliminary investigation after the filing of informations against them in court and did not make and sign a waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

  4. The arrest without a warrant of Vicky Ocaya is justified because she was arrested in flagrante delicto and refused to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

  5. The petitioners failed to provide evidence to support their claim that the firearms, ammunition, and subversive documents were planted by the military agents. There is no evidence of any evil motive or ill-will on the part of the arresting officers. The arrest of the petitioners was a result of in-depth surveillance and leads provided by former members of the rebel movement.

  6. The arrest of petitioner Roque without a warrant was reasonable considering that there were incriminatory evidence found in her possession and there was a connection between her and Buenaobra, who provided leads on her identity.

  7. The detention of petitioner Espiritu is justified as he was charged with violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition) and there was a valid information filed against him before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. He may be released upon posting bail.

  8. The arrest and detention of petitioner Nazareno is lawful as he was suspected to be involved in a killing. The arrest of one suspect led to the identification of Nazareno as another suspect.

  9. The arrest of Narciso Nazareno without a warrant was legal. The police officers had reasonable grounds to believe that he participated in the killing of Romulo Bunye II, as he was pointed out as one of the companions of Ramil Regala, who was arrested and charged with the same offense.

  10. The denial of bail to Narciso Nazareno was proper. The trial court denied his motion to post bail, presumably due to the strength of the evidence against him. The court has the discretion to grant or deny bail based on the circumstances and weight of evidence presented.

  11. The court has jurisdiction to inquire into every phase and aspect of a petitioner's detention in habeas corpus cases.

  12. The petitions are dismissed, except for G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), where the bail bond is reduced to P10,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Arrest without a warrant may be justified if the person arrested is found to be a member of a subversive organization or in possession of firearms or ammunition without license.

  • The Rules of Court allows for the filing of an information without a preliminary investigation when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The accused, however, should be given the opportunity to request a preliminary investigation.

  • The right to due process cannot be invoked by a party who failed to request a preliminary investigation or waive the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

  • An arrest without a warrant can be justified if the person was arrested in flagrante delicto.

  • The burden of proof lies with the petitioner who claims that evidence was planted, and mere assertions without supporting evidence cannot be relied upon.

  • Law enforcement officers are not required to be perfect, but their actions must be reasonable under the circumstances.

  • Incriminatory evidence can justify an arrest without a warrant.

  • Habeas corpus may not be granted if the petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid information filed with the court.

  • Bail can be recommended for release of a detainee.

  • The obligation of an agent of authority to make an arrest does not require the indubitable existence of a crime. It is sufficient that the agent has reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that the person sought to be detained participated in it.

  • The writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed if the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, or if such person is charged before any court and the court has jurisdiction. The writ is not a remedy for a person charged with or convicted of an offense or suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

  • Habeas corpus is not applicable after an information is filed against a detained person and a warrant of arrest or order of commitment is issued by the court where the information was filed. The doctrine of habeas corpus in such cases is based on express provisions of the Rules of Court and serves the exigencies served by the law.

  • The court must inquire into every phase and aspect of a petitioner's detention in habeas corpus cases.

  • Deprivation of individual liberty cases should be promptly brought to the courts for immediate scrutiny and disposition.