Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UMIL v. RAMOS (Motion For Reconsideration)
UMIL v. RAMOS (Motion For Reconsideration)
RAMOS (Motion for Reconsideration) admissions, as revealed by the records, strengthen the Court's perception that
truly the grounds upon which the arresting officers based their arrests without
October 3, 1991 | Per curiam warrant, are supported by probable cause, i.e. that the persons arrested were
probably guilty of the commission of certain offenses, in compliance with
SUMMARY: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Before the Court are separate motions filed by the petitioners seeking
reconsideration of the Court's decision promulgated on 9 July 1990 where the To note these admissions, on the other hand, is not to rule that the persons
Court dismissed their petitions. (Please refer to main decision) arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon which their warrantless arrests
were predicated. The task of determining the guilt or innocence of persons
RULING: MR DENIED. arrested without warrant is not proper in a petition for habeas corpus. It
The writ of habeas corpus exists as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve pertains to the trial of the case on the merits. What is important is that every
persons from unlawful restraint. Therefore, the function of the special arrest without warrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding.
proceedings of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of one's detention,
so that if detention is illegal, the detainee may be ordered forthwith released. This Resolution ends as it began, reiterating that mere suspicion of being a
Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the
There can be no dispute that, as a general rule, no peace officer or person has arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the
the power or authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest, except in questioned arrests without warrant in these petitions, not on mere
those cases express authorized by law. (Sec 5, Rule 113) unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance with the conditions set forth in
Section 5, Rule 113
The Court's decision rules that the arrest Rolando Dural without warrant is
within the contemplation of Section 5 Rule 113, he was committing an offense, MR DENIED. DENIAL IS FINAL
when arrested because Dural was arrested for being a member of the New
People's Army, an outlawed organization, where membership penalized, and
for subversion which, like rebellion is, under the doctrine of Garcia vs. Enrile,
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.
Nor can it be said that Dural's arrest was grounded on mere suspicion by the
arresting officers of his membership in the CPP/NPA. His arrest was based on
"probable cause," as supported by actual facts.
The arrest of Dural also falls under Section 5(b), Rule 113 based on "personal
knowledge of facts" acquired by the arresting officer or private person. The
Court took into account the admissions of the arrested persons of their
membership in the CPP/NPA, as well as their ownership of the unlicensed
firearms, ammunitions and documents in their possession. But again, these