GARCIA-PADILLA(petitioner ) VS PONCE ENRILE (respondent) G.R. No.

L-61388 April
20, 1983.(note: madami silang petitioners)
FACTS:(mahaba talaga facts nito, just bear with it)

 nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein were arrested when three (3) teams
of the PC/INP of conducted a raid at the residence of Dra. Aurora Parong who were
having a conference. 4 other detainess were arested the next day
 the (14) detainees were all detained at the PC/INP Command Headquarters,
Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya until their transfer to an undisclosed places.
 petition for the writ of habeas corpus and mandamus filed by Josefina Garcia-
Padilla, mother of detained petitioner Sabino G. Padilla, Jr.

 It is alleged in the petition that the arrest of petitioners was patently unlawful and
illegal since it was effected without any warrant of arrest; that the PC/INP raiding team
which made the arrest were only armed with a search warrant (No. 3-82) issued by Judge
Sofronio G. Sayo of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Viscaya, and nowhere in said
warrant was authority given to make arrests, much less detention; that the search warrant
which authorized respondents to seize "subversive documents, firearms of assorted
calibers, medicine and other subversive paraphernalia" in the house and clinic of Dra.
Aurora Parong was a roving and general warrant and is, therefore, illegal per se because
it does not state specifically the things that are to be seized.

 no criminal charges have as of yet been filed against any of the detainees; there is
no judgment, decree, decision or order from a court of law which would validate the
continued detention of the petitioner; that while it is true that a purported telegram stating
the issuance of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) was shown to the detainees on
or about July 11 and 12, 1982, but counsel and the detainees have not yet been given a
copy of such PCO, nor notified of its contents, raising a doubt whether such commitment
order has in fact been issued.

 respondents are denying the detainees their constitutional right to counsel,

averring that the detainees were allowed regular visits by counsel and relatives during
their period of detention
Issue:

Whether or not petitioners' detention is legal?

Held:

o Yes, Prior thereto to the arrest, the detainees were identified as members of the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) engaging in subversive activities and
 using the house of detainee Dra. Aurora Parong in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya,
as their headquarters.
o Caught in flagrante delicto, the nine (9) detainees mentioned scampered towards
different directions leaving on top of their conference table numerous subversive
documents, periodicals, pamphlets, books, correspondence, stationaries, and other
papers, including a plan on how they would infiltrate the youth and student sector
(code-named YORK).
o Also found were one (1) .38 cal. revolver with eight (8) live bullets, nineteen (19)
rounds of ammunition for M16 armalite, eighteen thousand six hundred fifty
pesos (P18,650.00) cash believed to be CPP/NPA funds, assorted medicine
packed and ready for distribution, and sizeable quantity of printing paraphernalia,
which were then seized.
o There is no doubt that circumstances attendant in the arrest of the herein detainees
fall under a situation where arrest is lawful even without a judicial warrant as
specifically provided for under Section 6(a), Rules 113 of the Rules of Court and
allowed under existing jurisprudence on the matter. As provided therein, a peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the
person to be arrested has committed or actually committing, or is about to commit
an offense in his presence.
o The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed
elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is
more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
rebyellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a
statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the
prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the
existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and
the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a judicial
warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt
acts of violence against goarrest and detention of persons ordered by the
President through the issuance of Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) is
merely preventivevernment forces, or any other milder acts but equally in
pursuance of the rebellious movement.
Resolution Source: Scribd.com