UMIL V RAMOS (1990)
PER CURIAM
·
The main issue in this case is WON
the arrests were valid and WON the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to the
petitioners
·
The court here will decide each
case based on the individual attending circumstances of all the accused
·
These are 8 consolidated petitions for habeas corpus because
the issues herein are similar
RESPONDENTS
|
PETITIONERS
|
The persons sought to be produced were all legally arrested
and are detained by virtue of valid informations hence a writ of HC cannot be
used to set them free
|
Informations were null and void
·
Detention is unlawful
·
arrests made with no warrant
·
no preliminary investigations
conducted
|
COURT: arrests
are LEGAL, circumstances do not warrant the release through habeas corpus
Warrantless
arrests are recognized by law
·
ROC- Rule 113 - Sec.
5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or
a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
xxxxx
·
Evidence shows
that persons arrested herein had all freshly committed or were actually
committing an offense à arrests justified and that they
are detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court
UMIL v RAMOS
·
They were arrested in connection with the killing of 2 capcom
soldiers
·
Dural was captured and identified 1 day after the incident
because he needed medical care
·
FEB 6, 1988 – petition for habeas corpus was filed with the
court on behalf of Umil, Dural and Villanueva
·
FEB 26, 1988 –
Umil and Villanueva posted bail before RTC Pasay where charges for violation of
the Anti-Subversion Act à they were released è HC of Umil and Villanueva = moot
and academic
·
Dural was not
arrested DURING the shooting nor was he arrested JUST AFTER à arrested a DAY AFTER = seemingly
unjustified
o
BUT court said the Dural was arrested for being a member of
the NPA an outlawed subversive organization
o
Subversion is
a continuing offense = arrest without warrant is justified
·
Furthermore
evidence shows that the case against Dural was tried in court wherein they were
found GUILTY = now serving sentence = HC no longer available
ROQUE vs. DE
VILLA
·
They were found through a snitch (Ramos) who pointed to a
certain house occupied by Constantino - used as a safehouse of the NUFC of the CPP-NPA
where Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra were apprehended
·
Buenaobra admitted that he was an NPA
courier and he had with him letters to Constantino and other members
·
Roque 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 frag grenade à no permit
·
Roque and Buenaobra were charged with violation of
anti-subversion act
·
BUENAOBRA - At the hearing à manifested his
desire to stay in Crame = Moot and academic
·
ROQUE’S
WARRANTLESS ARREST IS JUSTIFIED As officers and/or members of the
NUFC-CPP, their arrest, without warrant, was justified for the same reasons
earlier stated vis-a-vis Rolando Dural à additionally
justified as she was, at the time of apprehension, in possession of ammunitions
without license to possess them.
Anonuevo vs.
Ramos
·
Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon
Casiple are admittedly members of the standing committee of the NUFC apprehended
in the house of Constatino
o
they had a bag containing subversive materials, and both
carried firearms and ammunition (no permit to carry)
o
DURING COURSE OF HOUSE SURVEILANCE à The military
agents noticed bulging objects on their waist lines à frisked à found them to be loaded guns
·
SC says Anonuevo and Casiple were
carrying unlicensed firearms and ammo when arrested à lawful warrantless arrest
·
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 ROC
·
Anonuevo and Casiple, refused to sign a waiver of the
provisions of RPC Art 125 (Delay in delivery of detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities) PETITIONERS DID NOT ASK FOR A PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION AFTER INFOS FIELD AGAINST THEM IN COURT
Ocaya vs.
Aguirre
·
12 May 1988, agents of the PC Intelligence and Investigation
of the Rizal PC-INP Command, armed with a search warrant conducted a search of a house in Marikina occupied by Benito
Tiamson, head of the CPP-NPA.
·
During search 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 à They were brought to the PC Headquarters for investigation.
·
Ocaya could not produce any permit to possess the ammunition à information filed for violation of PD 1866 in RTC Pasig
·
Danny Rivera, on the other hand, was released from custody.
·
SC held that
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 RPC
WON EVIDENCE WAS
PLANTED? NO.
·
Ocaya, Anonuevo, Casiple and Roque claim that the firearms,
ammo and subversive docs were all planted illegal arrest
·
SC says NO EVIDENCE and
no attributable evil motive or ill-will on part of arresting officers
·
SOLGEN says arrests were part of in-depth surveillance of NPA
safehouses pointed to by former NPA members
NOT DISCUSSED IN
CLASS
·
Espiritu vs. Lim
(Keywords: Piston officer, subversively sleeping)
·
Nazareno vs.
Station Commander (keywords: policemen were killed Sc said obviously the
evidence against is obviously strong because an information was filed against
the accused)
CONCLUSION
All arrests herein stated were justified warrantless arrests
based on the attending circumstances of each case and because there is legal
and valid reasons as to why they are arrested and detained the writ of habeas
corpus cannot be granted in their favor.
·
GEN RULE: If a person
alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under
process issued by a court judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction
to issue the process or make the order, of if such person is charged
before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be
allowed.
o
IN THIS CASE: they had
jurisdiction because criminal charges were filed against all the accused
No comments:
Post a Comment