Case Digest Criminal Law II

Group IV

G.R. No 815567, October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL, ROLANDO

DURAL, AND RENATO VILLANUEVA, MANOLITA O. UMIL and NICANOR P. DURAL,
FELICITAS V. SESE, petitioners,
vs.
FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN. RAMON MANTANO, BRIG.
GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 84581-82, October 3, 1991

AMELIA ROQUE and WILFREDO BUENAOBRA, petitioners,

vs.
GEN. RENATO DE VILLA and GEN. RAMON MONTANO, respondents.

G.R. No. 84583-84, October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. DOMINGO T. ANONUEVO

and RAMON CASIPLE: DOMINGO T. ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLE, petitioners,
vs.
FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, COL. EVARISTO CARINO, LT. COL.
REX D. PIAD, T/SGT. CONRADO DE TORRES, S/SGT. ARNOLD DURIAN, and
Commanding Officer, PC-INP Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City,
respondents.

G.R. No. 83162, October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VICKY A. OCAYA and DANNY
RIVERA: VIRGILIO A. OCAYA, petitioners,
vs.
BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, COL. HERUCLES CATALUNA, COL. NESTOR MARIANO,
respondents.

G.R. No 85727, October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU,

petitioner,
vs.
BRIG. GEN. ALFREDO S. LIM, COL. RICARDO REYES, respondents.

G.R. No 86332, October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF NARCISO B. NAZARENO:

ALFREDO NAZARENO, petitioners,
vs.
THE STATION COMMANDER OF THE MUNTINLUPA POLICE STATION, Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila, P/SGT. JACINTO MEDINA, P/SGT. ELADIO TAGLE, P/SGT. LEVI SOLEDAD,
and P/SGT. MALTRO AROJADO, respondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts:

The case at bar pertain to separate motions filed by herein

petitioners, seeking reconsideration of the Courts decision promulgated
on 9 July 1990. The facts involved in each case are as follows:
Case Digest Criminal Law II
Group IV

RE: G.R. No 815567 Military agents, on 1 February 1988, were

dispatched to St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify
a confidential information which was received by their office, about a
sparrow man (NPA member), the latter had been admitted to said hospital
with a gunshot wound, and the information furthered that the wounded man
was among the five (5) male sparrows who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile
patrols the day before (31 January 1988) at about 12:00 oclock noon, in
Caloocan City. Basing on the same information, the wounded man was listed
by hospital management as Ronnie Javellon, twenty-two (22) years old of
Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Binan, Laguna. The agents later found
out that Ronnie Javellon was actually Rolando Dural.

RE: G.R. Nos. 84581-82 On 27 June 1988, the military agents

received information imparted by a former NPA about a certain house
occupied by one Renato Constantine, located in Villaluz Compound, Molave
St., Marikina Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila, which was being used as
their safehouse, thereby urging said agents to place said premises under
military surveillance. Pursuant to a search warrant duly issued by the
court, a search of the house was conducted (12 August 1988), wherein
Renato Constantine failed to produce any permit to possess the firearms,
ammunitions, radio and other communications equipment found there, the
latter also admitting himself as a ranking member of the CPP.

Wilfredo Buenaobra, upon arriving at the house of Renato Constantino

in the evening of 12 August 1988, admitted himself of being an NPA Courier,
with him were letters to Renato Constantine and other members of the rebel
group. Consequently, the documents possessed by Buenaobra led to Amelia
Roques whereabouts, wherein they found subversive documents and live
ammunition, Roque later admitting that said documents belonged to her.

RE: G.R. Nos. 84583-84 Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple were
arrested without warrant on the evening of 13 August 1998, when they
arrived at the house of Renato Constantine, that when the agents frisked
them, subversive documents, and loaded guns were found on their persons
but failed to show a permit to possess them.

RE: G.R. No. 83162 Vicky Ocaya was arrested without warrant when
she arrived at the premises of one Benito Tiamzon who was believed to be
the head of the CPP/NPA, the said house was subject of a search warrant
duly issued by the court. The PC-Intelligence and Investigation agents
found ammunition and subversive documents in Ocayas car.

RE: G.R. No. 85727 Deogracias Espiritu was arrested without

warrant on the basis of the attestation of certain witnesses: that about
5:00 oclock in the afternoon of 22 November 1988, at the corner of
Case Digest Criminal Law II
Group IV

Magsaysay Boulevard and Valencia St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, Espiritu spoke
at a gathering of drivers and sympathizers, to wit:

Bukas tuloy ang welga natin... hanggang sa magkagulo

na.

Police authorities arrested Espiritu without warrant, not for

subversion or any continuing offense, but for uttering the above-quoted
language which, in the perception of the arresting officers, tantamount
to inciting to sedition.

RE: G.R. No. 86332 On the morning of 14 December 1988, Romulo

Bunye II was killed by a group of men in Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila. Thereafter, about 5:00 oclock in the morning of 28 December 1988,
Ramil Regala, one of the suspects in the said killing, was arrested and
he pointed to Narciso Nazareno as one of his companions to the killing.
Consequently, at 7:20 of the same morning, police agents arrested
Nazareno, without warrant, for investigation.

Issues:

I. Whether or not those arrests made without warrant, were meted out
according to the provisions of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court.

II. Whether or not the decision erred in considering the admission made
by the persons arrested, inasmuch as those confessions do not comply with
the requirements on admissibility of extrajudicial admissions.

III. Whether or not the doctrine laid down in Garcia v. Enrile and Ilagan
v. Enrile be abandoned.

Ruling:

I. Yes, in as much as the arrests were carried out in accordance

with Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

The present cases focus primarily on Section 5, paragraphs (a) and

(b) of Rule 113, which reads:

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;
Case Digest Criminal Law II
Group IV

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,

and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrest has committed it; and

. . . (Emphasis supplied).

In the case of Dural, inferring from the Courts decision, dated 9

july 1990, Rolando Durals arrest without warrant was justified as
contemplated by Section 5, Rule 113, as it was determined in the latter
decision that his position as a member of the New Peoples Army, where
membership is penalized,1 and for subversion, which, under the doctrine
of Garcia v. Enrile2 is a continuing offense3, to wit:

The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion,

conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes
and offenses committed in the furtherance (sic) on the
occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection
therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all
in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart
from the common offenses, aside from their essentially
involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. . .
.

It is upon the majoritys observation that Dural, notwithstanding

his medical confinement, did not cease to be, or became less of a
subversive. It was also deduced by the Court that transgressions such as
subversion and rebellion are deemed to be anchored on an ideological base
which compels repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and violence
until the overriding objective of overthrowing organized government is
attained.

Furthermore, Durals arrest was in conformity to Section 5,

paragraph (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, with said provision
referring to warrantless arrests based on personal knowledge of facts.
The facts deduced (refer to facts of G.R. No 815567) from the said case
was deemed reasonable and with probable cause as it was based on actual
facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to engender a belief that
an NPA member was truly in the said hospital. This is in reference to US
v. Santos (1917), that: personal knowledge of facts in arrests without
warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief
or reasonable grounds for suspicion4. The grounds reasonable when, in
the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense
is based on actual facts (i.e. supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person
to be arrested5)

These requisites were also complied with in the case of Amelia Roque
and Wilfredo Buenaobra (G.R. Nos. 84581-82), Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon
Casiple (G.R. Nos. 84583-84) and Vicky Ocaya (G.R. No. 83162), wherein
Case Digest Criminal Law II
Group IV

said petitioners were duly searched pursuant to search warrants issued by

a court of law. their arrests were also justified by virtue of Section 5,
paragraph (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

In G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu), it was held that in the balancing of

authority and freedom, which obviously becomes different at times, the
Court has, in this case, tilted the scale in favor of authority but only
for purposes of arrest, and not conviction.

Lastly, in G.R. No. 86332 (Nazareno), that although the killing of

Bunye II occurred on 14 December 1988, and Nazarenos arrest without
warrant was made only on 28 December 1988, or 14 days later, the arrest
fans under Section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113, since it was only on 28
December 1988 that the police authorities came to know that Nazareno was
probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye II and the arrest
had to be made promptly, even without warrant, (after the police were
alerted) and despite the lapse of fourteen (14) days to prevent possible
flight.

II. No. Although the court indeed took into account the admissions
of he arrested persons of their membership in the CPP/NPA, as well as the
ownership of the unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and subversive
documents in their possession. But it is to be considered that said items
merely bolstered the Courts perception that the grounds upon which the
arresting officers based their arrests without warrant, are supported by
probable cause. To note these admissions is NOT to rule that the persons
arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon which their warrantless
arrests were predicated. That said, determining the guilt of innocence of
persons arrested without warrant is not proper in the petition for habeas
corpus.

III. No. The court finds no compelling reason at this time to

disturb the doctrines of Garcia v. Enrile and Ilagan v. Enrile,
particularly in the light of prevailing conditions where national security
and liability are still directly challenged perhaps with greater vigor
from the communist rebels. What is important is that every arrest without
warrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:
1 Republic Act No. 1700 known as the "Anti-Subversion Act" titled "An
Act to outlaw the CPP and similar associations, penalize membership
therein and for other purposes." (1957); and the subsequent related
decrees such as Presidential Decree No. 885, entitled "Outlawing
subversive organizations, penalizing membership therein, and for other
Case Digest Criminal Law II
Group IV

purposes." (1976); and Presidential Decree No. 1835 entitled "Codifying

the various laws on anti-subversion and increasing the penalties for
membership in subversive organizations."
2 Garcia v. Enrile, G.R. No. 61388. April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 472
3 - A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a single
crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal
resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime
committed; hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.
4 US v. Santos, 36 Phil. 851 (1917)
5 ibid.