IN

THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF HORACIO R. MORALES, JR. and
ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, v. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and COL.
GALILEO KINTANAR.
G.R. Nos. 61016 and 61107, April 26, 1983, EN BANC (Concepcion, Jr, J.)

FACTS:

Petitioners were arrested on April 21, 1982 by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines. Since their arrest, they have been under detention.

Petitioner Morales filed his petition for habeas corpus with the Court on July 9, 1982, while
petitioner Moncupa filed his on July 19, 1982.

On July 20, 1982 petitioners were charged with Rebellion before the Court of First Instance of
Rizal in Criminal Case No. Q-21091 filed by the City Fiscal of Quezon City.

Petitioners allege that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their
constitutional rights to counsel, to remain silent, to a speedy and public trial and right to bail
were violated. They also air the charge that they were subjected to maltreatment and torture.

Acting on these allegations, the Court ordered the City Fiscal to reinvestigate and assigned him to be
the Courts commissioner tasked to accept evidences of the alleged Constitutional violations.

On September 28, 1982, the City Fiscal submitted his report on the reinvestigation affirming
the existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and several others

ISSUE:

WON the petitioners were legally arrested

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE.

The Supreme Court found that indeed petitioners were arrested without any warrant of arrest
since the records showed that the Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order (a warrant of
arrest issued by the President) against petitioners was approved only on April 23, 1982.

However, the Court also found that, months before their arrest, petitioners were already under
surveillance on suspicion of committing rebellion. From the results of the said surveillance, the
evidence then at hand, and the documents seized from them at the time of their arrest, it would
appear that they had committed or were actually committing the offense of rebellion.

Their arrest without a warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly justified under Sec. 6,
Rule 113 which provides for instances where an arrest may be made in the absence of a
warrant.

WHEREFORE, as aforestated, the petitions should be, as they are hereby, DISMISSED, With costs
against the petitioners.