UMIL v.

RAMOS (Motion for Reconsideration) admissions, as revealed by the records, strengthen the Court's perception that
October 3, 1991 | Per curiam
SUMMARY:
Before the Court are separate motions filed by the petitioners seeking
reconsideration of the Court's decision promulgated on 9 July 1990 where the
Court dismissed their petitions. (Please refer to main decision)
RULING: MR DENIED.
The writ of habeas corpus exists as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve
persons from unlawful restraint. Therefore, the function of the special
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.
There can be no dispute that, as a general rule, no peace officer or person has
the power or authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest, except in
those cases express authorized by law. (Sec 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,
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.
truly the grounds upon which the arresting officers based their arrests without
warrant, are supported by probable cause, i.e. that the persons arrested were
probably guilty of the commission of certain offenses, in compliance with
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
To note these admissions, on the other hand, is not to rule that the persons
arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon which their warrantless arrests
were predicated. The task of determining the guilt or innocence of persons
arrested without warrant is not proper in a petition for habeas corpus. It
pertains to the trial of the case on the merits. What is important is that every
arrest without warrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding.
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
arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the
questioned arrests without warrant in these petitions, not on mere
unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance with the conditions set forth in
Section 5, Rule 113
MR DENIED. DENIAL IS FINAL

Given the ideological content of membership in the CPP/NPA which includes

armed struggle for the overthrow of organized government, Dural did not cease
to be, or became less of a subversive, FOR PURPOSES OF ARREST, simply
because he was, at the time of arrest, confined in the St. Agnes Hospital.

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