You are on page 1of 2

Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and Renato Villanueva vs Ramos

Facts:
These are eight petitions 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 persons named
therein and to explain why they should not be set at liberty without further delay.
Facts of the case in Umil v Ramos:
On 1 Feb 1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOUCAPCOM) received confidential information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit being
treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. It was
found out that the wounded person was actually Rolando Dural. He was referred to the
Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Caloocan City an information charging Dural of Double Murder with Assault upon Agents of
Persons in Authority.
On 6 Feb 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed in Supreme Court on behalf of Robert
Umil, Rolando Dural, and Renato Villanueva.
Issue:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the writ of habeas corpus
2. Whether Dural was lawfully arrested without warrant
Hel:
1. With regard to Umil and Villanueva, the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is moot and
academic since they have been released on bail by virtue of their petition before the RTC of
Pasay (writ of habeas corpus does not lie in favor of an accused in a criminal case who has
been released on bail).
2. Yes. Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive
organization. Subversion, being a continuing offense, the arrest of Dural without warrant is
justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested (because of his
membership to the NPA). The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
commit such crimes, and crimes committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith
constitute direct assault against the State are in the nature of continuing offense under
proclamation No. 2045. Furthermore, the arrest of persons involved therein, in the absence
of a juridical warrant is of no legal impediment. The arrest or capture is impelled by the
exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its governmental
and duly constituted authorities.
With regard to the writ of habeas corpus of Dural, it cannot be given effect since the trial
court has already pronounced his conviction.

Note:

In all petitions considered, criminal charges have been filed in the proper courts against the
petitioners. The rule is, that if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty, is in the
custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge who has jurisdiction, the writ
of habeas corpus shall not be allowed (sec 4, Rule 102, Rules of Court).
Ilagan v Enrile- 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 was filed.

You might also like