Umil vs Ramos

PER CURIAM:
Facts:
These are eight (8) petitions for habeas corpus filed before the Court, which was
consolidated because of the similarity of issues raised.
1) As to Rolando Dural, he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the two
(2) CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. Nor was he arrested just after the
commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day after the said
shooting incident. However, Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member
of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive organization.
2) When Wilfredo Buenaobra was apprehended he admitted that he was an NPA
courier. Amelia Roque, on the other hand, was a member of the National
United Front Commission, in charge of finance, and admitted ownership of
subversive documents found in the house of her sister in Caloocan City. She
was also in possession of ammunition and a fragmentation grenade for which
she had no permit or authority to possess.
3) Both are admittedly members of the standing committee of the NUFC and,
when apprehended in the house of Renato Constantino, they had a bag
containing subversive materials, and both carried firearms and ammunition
for which they had no license to possess or carry.
4) The record of this case shows that on 12 May 1988, agents of the PC
Intelligence and Investigation , armed with a search warrant, conducted a
search of a house believed to be occupiedby Benito Tiamson, head of the
CPPNPA. In the course of the search, Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car driven by
Danny Rivera. Subversive documents and several rounds of ammunition for a
.45 cal. pistol were found in the car of Vicky Ocaya. As a result, Vicky Ocaya
and Danny Rivera were brought to the PC Headquarters for investigation.
When Vicky Ocaya could not produce any permit or authorization to possess
the ammunition, an information charging her with violation of PD 1866 was
filed. Danny Rivera, on the other hand, was released from custody.
5) The petitioners Vicky Ocaya, Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon Casiple, and Amelia
Roque claim that the firearms, ammunition and subversive documents
alleged to have been found in their possession when they were arrested, did
not belong to them, but were planted by the military agents to justify their
illegal arrest. The petitioners, however, have not introduced any evidence to
support their aforesaid claim.
6) Deogracias Espiritu through trimedia was heard urging all drivers and
operators to go on nationwide strike to force the government to give in to
their demands to lower the prices of spare parts, commodities, water and the
immediate release from detention of the president of the PISTON (Pinagisang
Samahan ng Tsuper Operators Nationwide) Policemen waited for petitioner
outside the National Press Club in order to investigate him, but he gave the

lawmen the slip. He was next seen at about 5:00 oclock that afternoon
informing everyone that the strike will push through.
7) One Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men. One of the suspects in the
killing was Ramil Regala who was arrested by the. Upon questioning, Regala
pointed to Narciso Nazareno as one of his companions. In view thereof, the
police officers, without warrant, picked up Narciso Nazareno and brought him
to the police headquarters for questioning. Obviously, the evidence of
petitioners guilt is strong because on 3 January 1989, an information
charging Narciso Nazareno, Ramil Regala, and two (2) others, with the killing
of Romulo Bunye II was filed.
8) It is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal charges
have been filed in the proper courts against the petitioners. The rule is, that if
a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
under process issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge had
jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, or if such person is
charged before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed.
Issue:
Held: WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED
Ratio Decidenti:
1) The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in
the nature of continuing crimes.
2) The contention of respondents that petitioners Roque and Buenaobra are
officers and/or members of the National United Front Commission (NUFC) of
the CPP was not controverted or traversed by said petitioners. The contention
must be deemed admitted. As officers and/or members of the NUFCCPP, their
arrest, without warrant, was justified for the same reasons earlier stated vis a
vis Rolando Dural. The arrest without warrant of Roque was additionally
justified as she was, at the time of apprehension, in possession of
ammunitions without license to possess them.
3) There is also no merit in the contention that the informations filed against
them are null and void for want of a preliminary investigation. The filing of an
information, without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted,
is sanctioned by the Rules. Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court
4) It would appear, however, that Vicky Ocaya was arrested in flagranti delicto
so that her arrest without a warrant is justified. No preliminary investigation
was conducted because she was arrested without a warrant and she refused
to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to
Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
5) Petitioners, when arrested, were neither taking their snacks nor innocently
visiting a camp, but were arrested in such time, place and circumstances,

from which one can reasonably conclude that they were up to a sinister plot,
involving utmost secrecy and comprehensive conspiracy.
6) Since the arrest of the petitioner without a warrant was in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 113, Sec. 5(b) of the Rules of Court and that the
petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid information filed with the competent
court, he may not be released on habeas corpus. He may, however be
released upon posting bail as recommended. However, we find the amount of
the recommended bail (P60,000.00) excessive and we reduce it to
P10,000.00 only.
7) Evidently, the arrest of Nazareno was effected by the police without warrant
pursuant to Sec. 5 (b), Rule 113, Rules of Court after he was positively
implicated by his coaccused Ramil Regala in the killing of Romulo Bunye II
8) The answer and the better practice would be, not to limit the function of
habeas corpus to a mere inquiry as to whether or not the court which issued
the process, judgment or order of commitment or before whom the detained
person is charged, had jurisdiction or not to issue the process, judgment or
order or to take cognizance of the case, but rather, as the Court itself states
in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must
inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioners detentionfrom the
moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes
upon the merits of the petition; and only after such a scrutiny can the court
satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact
warrant of arrest or order of commitment should be issued even after the
information has been filed against the detained person, would seem
superfluous. As aptly stated in the early case of U.S. vs. Wilson, 4 Phil. 381,
where a person who has been legally arrested without a warrant was
actually before a court, that court had a right to proceed against him without
in the first place issuing a warrant for his detention.