Scribd
Upload
169 views1 page

Umil vs. Ramos

The petitions seek reconsideration of the Court's decision dismissing previous petitions for writ of habeas corpus. The previous petitions sought orders for respondents to produce bodies of persons detained and explain why they should not be released. Respondents assert the detentions are legal as the persons were validly arrested without warrants due to committing offenses under the Rules of Court. The Court denies reconsideration, finding the arrests were justified as the persons had freshly committed or were committing offenses when apprehended, and they are detained under valid informations filed against them.

Uploaded by

misterdodi
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
169 views1 page

Umil vs. Ramos

The petitions seek reconsideration of the Court's decision dismissing previous petitions for writ of habeas corpus. The previous petitions sought orders for respondents to produce bodies of persons detained and explain why they should not be released. Respondents assert the detentions are legal as the persons were validly arrested without warrants due to committing offenses under the Rules of Court. The Court denies reconsideration, finding the arrests were justified as the persons had freshly committed or were committing offenses when apprehended, and they are detained under valid informations filed against them.

Uploaded by

misterdodi
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

UMIL VS.

RAMOS
GR 81567, SEPT. 8, 1990
PER CURIAM

FACTS:
-The are separate motions filed by 8 different petitions seeking reconsideration of the Court's decision
promulgated on 9 July 1990 (the decision, for brevity) which dismissed the petitions, with the following
dispositive part:

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.

- These petitions were consolidated because of the similarity of the issues being 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 explain why they should not be set off to liberty without delay.
- Respondents assert that the privilege of habeas corpus is not available to petitioners as they have been
legally arrested and detained by virtue of valid information file in court against them.
- Petitioners are members of NPA

ISSUE:
WON the petitioners are illegally arrested and detained.

HELD:
Arrest and detention is valid.

RATIO:

There can be no dispute that, as a general rule, no peace officer or person has the power or
authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest, except in those cases express authorized by law. 6
The law expressly allowing arrests without warrant is found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
which states the grounds upon which a valid arrest, without warrant, can be conducted.

In the present cases, the focus is understandably on Section 5, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said Rule 113,
which read:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to he arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrest has committed it;

The record of the cases would show that the persons in whose behalf these petitions for habeas
corpus have been filed has freshly committed, or were actually committing an offense when apprehended
so that their arrest without warrant is clearly justified , and that they are detained by virtue of valid
information filed against them.

You might also like