Umil v.

Ramos
202 SCRA 251 (1991)

Contention of the State: The respondents uniformly assert that the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the petitioners as they have
been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid information filed in
court against them. In the Umil case, the arresting officers had good reason to
believe that an NPA member (Rolando Dural, although using a fictitious name)
was indeed being treated at St. Agnes Hospital, QC for gunshot wounds. The
information was from the attending doctor and hospital management, and
therefore came from reliable sources. In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the
same admitted that he was an NPA courier. In the case of Amelia Roque,
subversive documents and live ammunition were found at the time of her
arrest, and she admitted to owning such documents. As regards Domingo
Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and found subversive
documents & loaded guns without permits. With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she
arrived at a house subject to a search warrant. Ammunition & subversive
documents were found in her car. In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was
identified by Ramil Regala as the latter’s companion in killing Romulo Bunye II.

Defense of the Accused: The assailed decision, in upholding the validity of the
questioned arrests made without warrant, and in relying on the provisions of
the Rules of Court, particularly Section 5 of Rule 113 (Arrest), disregards the
fact that such arrests violated the constitutional rights of the persons arrested.

Ruling: Dural and the other petitioners were lawfully arrested for being
members of the New People’s Army (mere membership is penalized), and for
subversion (a continuing offense). Subversion and rebellion are anchored on an
ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness &
violence until the objective of overthrowing organized government is attained.
Likewise, the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested is the one who committed the offense (based on
actual facts), coupled with good faith in making the arrest. The Court reiterates
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 arrests on the compliance with the
requirements of a long existing law; probable cause and good faith of the
arresting peace officers; and that the arrest be on the basis of actual facts and
circumstances.