Morales v.

Enrile 121 SCRA 472, April, 20 1983

FACTS:
On April 21, 1982, the petitioners were arrested while riding a motor vehicle in
Laong-laan street, Quezon city. They were charged in CFI Rizal for rebellion
punishable under the RPC. by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the AFP. Since
then, they have been under detention. Petitioners filed with this Court a petition for
habeas corpus. Subsequently, on July 20, 1982, they were charged with rebellion
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal which was filed by the City Fiscal of
Quezon City. The trial of the case has yet to be terminated.
Petitioners allege that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest;
that their constitutional rights were violated(specifically art. 3 sec 20 of the
constitution),among them the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right
to a speedy and public trial, and the right to bail. They also air the charge that they
were subjected to maltreatment and torture; that they did not have the opportunity
to presenttheir defense before the inquest fiscal and therefore asked this Court to
order the reinvestigation of the charges against them. Acting on such plea, this
Court in a resolution
At the time of the arrest of the nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein on July
6, 1982, records reveal that they were then having conference in the dining room of
Dr. Parong's residence from 10:00 a.m. of that same day. Prior thereto, all the
fourteen (14) detainees were under surveillance as they were then Identified as
members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) engaging in
subversive activities and using the house of detainee Dr. Aurora Parong in
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, as their headquarters. Caught in flagrante delicto, the
nine (9) detainees mentioned scampered towards different directions leaving on top
of their conference table numerous subversive documents, periodicals, pamphlets,
books, correspondence, stationeries, and other papers, including a plan on how they
would infiltrate the youth and student sector (code-named YORK). Also found were
one (1) .38 cal. revolver with eight (8) live bullets, nineteen (19) rounds of
ammunition for M16 armalite, eighteen thousand six hundred fifty pesos P
l8,650.00) cash believed to be CPP/NPA funds, assorted medicine packed and ready
for distribution, a sizeable quantity of printing paraphernalia, which were then
seized.
Respondents countered that the group of Morales were already under surveillance
for some time before they were arrested and that the warrantless arrest done is
valid and at the same time the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was already
suspended.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioners continued detention is legal.
2. Whether or not Morales et al can post bail.
3. Whether the warrantless arrest is valid.
HELD:
1. Yes. Their continued detention is legal for the reason that a proper case of

rebellion had been filed against them in the proper court and the trial has yet to be
terminated.
Although martial law was terminated on Jan 17, 1981 by the President, the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus continues to be suspended in all other places with
respect to certain offenses such as rebellion or insurrection, subversion, conspiracy
or proposal to commit such crimes, among others.
2. No, the right to bail is suspended. Normally, rebellion being a non-capital offense
is bailable. But because the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus remains
suspended with respect to persons at present detained as well as other who may
hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion,
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and for all other crimes
and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, or in connection therewith, the natural consequence is that the
right to bail for the commission of anyone of the said offenses is also suspended. To
hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where
the offense for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said offenses he
has no right to bail even after the charges are filed in court. 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
attacks on the life of the State. Just as an individual has right to self-defense when
his life is endangered, so does the State. The suspension of the privilege of the writ
is to enable the State to hold in preventive imprisonment pending investigation and
trial those persons who plot against it and commit acts that endanger the States
very existence. For this measure of self-defense to be effective, the right to bail
must also be deemed suspended with respect to these offenses. However, there is a
difference between preventive and punitive imprisonment. Where the filing of
charges in court or the trial of such charges already filed becomes protracted
without any justifiable reason, the detention becomes punitive in character and the
detainee regains his right to freedom. Thus the right to bail is also suspended.
The petitions are without merit and hereby dismissed.
3. Yes , indeed the pet it ioner s wer e arr ested wit hout a warr ant, ho wever,
m onths bef or e t heir arr est, pet it ioner s wer e already under surveillance on
suspicion on comm itt ing rebellion. From t he result s of t he said sur veillance,
t he evidence then at hand, and the docum ent s seized fr om them at t he time of
t heir arr est, it would appear that t he y had com mitted or wer e actually
com mitting the offense of r ebellion. Their arr est wit hout a war rant is therefor e
justified