Umil vs Ramos, supra

(Consolidated cases)

Contention of the State

Umil v Ramos (specifically)

CAPCOM got a tip that a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) was being treated for a
gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Q.C. Upon verification, it was found that
the wounded person was Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation squad, responsible for the
killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers. Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman who went
on top of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol car, and fired at the CAPCOM soldiers seated inside.
Dural was then transferred to another facility, under CAPCOM supervision (basically, he was arrested).

Defense of the Accused

Dural claims that his arrest was illegal because it was made without a warrant of arrest as required by
law.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The arrest was legal since subversion is a form of a continuing crime (including Umil vs Ramos Case) –
together with rebellion, conspiracy or proposal to commit rebellion/subversion, and crimes committed
in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith. On the inciting to sedition case, the arrest was legal
since an information was filed prior to his arrest. Lastly, the arrests were not fishing expeditions but a
result of an in-depth surveillance of NPA safe houses pinpointed by none other than members of the
NPA.

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 rebellion, 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 government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the
rebellious movement. If killing and other acts of violence against the rebels find justification in the
exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or insurrection, most
assuredly so in case of invasion, merely seizing their persons and detaining them while any of these
contingencies continues cannot be less justified”