CRIMPRO Warrantless Arrest

Title G.R. No. 81567

Umil v Ramos (1991) Date: October 3, 1991
Ponente: PER CURIAM
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN.
ROBERTO UMIL, ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO RAMON MONTANO, BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE,
VILLANUEVA, MANOLITA O. UMIL and NICANOR P. DURAL, respondents.
FELICITAS V. SESE, petitioners,
Doctrine: Mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the arrest
without warrant of the suspect. The validity of the questioned arrests without warrant in these petitions were predicated,
not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance with the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of
Court, a long existing law, and which, for stress, are probable cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers, and,
further, on the basis of, as the records show, the actual facts and circumstances supporting the arrests.
FACTS
 Separate motions before the Court, seeking reconsideration.
 In the Umil case, the arresting officers had good reason to believe that an NPA member (Rolando Dural, although using
a fictitious name) was indeed being treated at St. Agnes Hospital, QC for gunshot wounds. The information was from
the attending doctor and hospital management, and therefore came from reliable sources.
 In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was an NPA courier.
 In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live ammunition were found at the time of her arrest, and she
admitted to owning such documents.
 As regards Domingo Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and found subversive documents & loaded guns
without permits.
 With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a search warrant. Ammunition & subversive documents
were found in her car.
 In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramil Regala as the latter’s companion in killing Romulo
Bunye II.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not Rolando Dural (and other petitioners in the other consolidated cases) was lawfully arrested
RATIO
 Dural and the other petitioners were lawfully arrested for being members of the New People’s Army (mere
membership is penalized), and for subversion (a continuing offense).
 Subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of
lawlessness & violence until the objective of overthrowing organized government is attained.
 Likewise, the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one
who committed the offense (based on actual facts), coupled with good faith in making the arrest.
 The Court reiterates that mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a
ground for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the arrests on the
compliance with the requirements of a long existing law; probable cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers;
and that the arrest be on the basis of actual facts and circumstances.
RULING
ACCORDINGLY, the motions for reconsideration of the decision dated 9 July 1990, are DENIED. This denial is FINAL