Umil vs.

Ramos
FACTS: This consolidated case of 8 petitions for habeas corpus assails the validity of the arrests and
searches made by the military on the petitioners. The arrests relied on the confidential information that
the authorities received. !"cept for one case #here incitin$ to sedition #as char$ed% the rest are char$ed
#ith subversion for bein$ a member of the &e# 'eople(s Army.
RU)*&+: The arrests #ere le$al. Re$ardin$ the subversion cases% the arrests #ere le$al since
subversion is a form of a continuin$ crime , to$ether #ith rebellion% conspiracy or proposal to commit
rebellion-subversion% and crimes committed in furtherance thereof or in connection there#ith. .n the
incitin$ to sedition case% the arrest #as le$al since an information #as filed prior to his arrest. )astly% the
arrests #ere not fishin$ e"peditions but a result of an in/depth surveillance of &'A safe houses
pinpointed by none other than members of the &'A.
The ri$ht to preliminary investi$ation should be e"ercised by the offender as soon as possible. .ther#ise%
it #ould be considered as impliedly #aived and the filin$ of information can proceed. This sort of
irre$ularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid 0ud$ment upon a sufficient complaint and after a trial free
from error.
1*SS!&T: 2Sarmiento% 3.4 The confidential information #as nothin$ but hearsay. The searches and
arrests made #ere bereft of probable cause and that the petitioners #ere not cau$ht in fla$rante delicto or
in any overt act. Utmost% the authorities #as luc5y in their fishin$ e"peditions.
2. The Bill of Rights can only be invoked only against the state. People vs. Marti --6arti and his #ife
#ent to the booth of the 76anila 'ac5in$ and !"port For#arders7 carryin$ #ith them four 284 $ift/#rapped
pac5a$es. 6arti informed the o#ner that the pac5a$es simply contained boo5s% ci$ars and $loves as $ifts
to his friends in 9urich and refused to allo# the o#ner to e"amine and inspect the pac5a$es. :o#ever%
before the delivery of the bo" to the ;ureau of Customs% the o#ner<s husband inspected the pac5a$e and
found mari0uana #hich #as later turned over to the &;*. A case #as filed a$ainst 6arti. 6arti invo5ed his
ri$ht a$ainst ille$al searches and sei=ure. :eld: The constitutional proscription a$ainst unla#ful searches
and sei=ures therefore applies as a restraint directed only a$ainst the $overnment and its a$encies
tas5ed #ith the enforcement of the la#. Thus% it could only be invo5ed a$ainst the State to #hom the
restraint a$ainst arbitrary and unreasonable e"ercise of po#er is imposed.
Corollarily% alle$ed violations a$ainst unreasonable search and sei=ure may only be invo5ed a$ainst the
State by an individual un0ustly traduced by the e"ercise of soverei$n authority. To a$ree #ith appellant
that an act of a private individual in violation of the ;ill of Ri$hts should also be construed as an act of the
State #ould result in serious le$al complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution