495 UMIL vs.

RAMOS (1990)

There are eight (8) petitioners for habeas corpus filed before the Court, which have been consolidated because of the similarity of
issues raised, praying for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, ordering the respective respondents to produce the bodies of the
persons named therein and to explain why they should not be set at liberty without further delay. In their respective Returns, 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 informations filed in court against them. The petitioners counter that their detention is
unlawful as their arrests were made without warrant and, that no preliminary investigation was first conducted, so that the
informations filed against them are null and void.

The Court has carefully reviewed the contentions of the parties in their respective pleadings, and it finds that the persons detained have
not been illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional right to liberty, and that the circumstances attending these
cases do not warrant their release on habeas corpus.

RULING

1. In G.R. No. 81567, as to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the two (2)
CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. Nor was he arrested just after the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day
after the said shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without warrant is unjustified. However, Rolando Dural was arrested for
being a member of the New People’s Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense,
the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. 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 assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes.

2. In G.R. Nos. 84581-82, as to the arrest of Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra, without warrant, is also justified. When
apprehended at the house of Renato Constantino in Marikina Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila, Wilfredo Buenaobra admitted that
he was an NPA courier and he had with him letters to Renato Constantino and other members of the rebel group. Amelia Roque,
upon the other hand, was a member of the National United Front Commission, in charge of finance, and admitted ownership of
subversive documents found in the house of her sister in Caloocan City. She was also in possession of ammunition and a
fragmentation grenade for which she had no permit or authority to possess.

3. In G.R. Nos. 84583-84, the arrest of Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, without warrant, is also justified under the rules.
Both are admittedly members of the standing committee of the NUFC and, when apprehended in the house of Renato Constatino,
they had a bag containing subversive materials, and both carried firearms and ammunition for which they had no license to possess
or carry.

4. In G.R. No. 83162, the arrest without warrant, of Vicky Ocaya is justified under the Rules, since she had with her unlicensed
ammunition when she was arrested. Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car driven by Danny Rivera. Subversive documents and several
rounds of ammunition for a .45 cal. pistol were found in the car of Vicky Ocaya after a lawful search.

5. In. G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), accused Espiritu was the General Secretary of the Pinagkaisahang Samahan ng Tsuper at
Operators Nationwide (PISTON), an association of drivers and operators of public service vehicles in the Philippines, organized
for their mutual aid and protection. He was also lawfully arrested without a judicial warrant of arrest since petitioner when arrested
had in fact just committed an offense in that in the afternoon of 22 November 1988, during a press conference at the National Press
Club where he was heard to say “Bukas tuloy ang welga natin, sumagot na ang Cebu at Bicol na kasali sila, at hindi tayo titigil
hanggang hindi binibigay ng gobyerno ni Cory ang gusto nating pagbaba ng halaga ng spare parts, bilihin at and pagpapalaya sa
ating pinuno na si Ka Roda hanggang sa magkagulo na.” His detention is justified in view of the Information filed against him
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 88-683-85, charging him with violation of Art.
142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition).

6. In G.R. No. 86332 (Nazareno vs. Station Commander), we also find no merit in the submission of Narciso Nazareno that he was
illegally arrested and is unlawfully detained. The record of this case shows that at about 8:30 o'clock in the morning of 14
December 1988, one Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men near the corner of T. Molina and Mendiola Streets in
Alabang, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila. One of the suspects in the killing was Ramil Regal who was arrested by the police on 28
December 1988. Upon questioning, Regal pointed to Narciso Nazareno as one of his companions in the killing of the said Romulo
Bunye II. In view thereof, the police officers, without warrant, picked up Narciso Nazareno and brought him to the police
headquarters for questioning. Obviously, the evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong because on 3 January 1989, an information
charging Narciso Nazareno, Ramil Regala, and two (2) others, with the killing of Romulo Bunye II was filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The case is docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 731.

At this point, we refer to petitioner's plea for the Court of re-examine and, thereafter, abandon its pronouncement in Ilagan
vs. Enrile, that a writ of habeas corpus is no longer available after an information is filed against the person detained and a warrant of
arrest or an order of commitment, is issued by the court where said information has been filed.  The petitioners claim that the said
ruling, which was handed down during the past dictatorial regime to enforce and strengthen said regime, has no place under the
present democratic dispensation and collides with the basic, fundamental, and constitutional rights of the people.

We find, however, no compelling reason to abandon the said doctrine. It is based upon express provision of the Rules of Court and the
exigencies served by the law. The fears expressed by the petitioners are not really unremediable. As the Court sees it, re-examination
or reappraisal, with a view to its abandonment, of the Ilagan case doctrine is not the answer. The answer and the better practice would
be as the Court itself states in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, "in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and
aspect of petitioner's detention-from the moment petition was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of
the petition;" and "only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been
satisfied." This is exactly what the Court has done in the petitions at bar. This is what should henceforth be done in all future cases
of habeas corpus. In Short, all cases involving deprivation of individual liberty should be promptly brought to the courts for their
immediate scrutiny and disposition.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED, except that in G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the bail bond for petitioner's
provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from P60,000.00 to P10,000.00. No costs.