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. Except for one case where inciting to sedition was charged, the rest are charged with subversion for being a member of the New Peoples Army.

RULING: The arrests were legal. Regarding the subversion cases, the arrests were legal since subversion is a form of a continuing crime 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 right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by the offender as soon as possible. Otherwise, it would be considered as impliedly waived and the filing of information can proceed. This sort of irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid judgment upon a sufficient complaint and after a trial free from error.

DISSENT: (Sarmiento, J.) The confidential information was nothing but hearsay. The searches and arrests made were bereft of probable cause and that the petitioners were not caught in flagrante delicto or in any overt act. Utmost, the authorities was lucky in their fishing expeditions.

2. The Bill of Rights can only be invoked only against the state. People vs. Marti -- Marti and his wife went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" carrying with them four (4) gift-wrapped packages. Marti informed the owner that the packages simply contained books, cigars and gloves as gifts to his friends in Zurich and refused to allow the owner to examine and inspect the packages. However, before the delivery of the box to the Bureau of Customs, the owner's husband inspected the package and found marijuana which was later turned over to the NBI. A case was filed against Marti. Marti invoked his right against illegal searches and seizure. Held: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

Corollarily, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of the State would result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution

G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.RUBEN BURGOS y TITO,defendant-appellant.Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del Sur. From the information filed by the police authorities upon the information given by Masamlok, allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the police authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. Subsequently, certain NPA-related documents and a firearm, allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. Pol of the NPA, are confiscated. Defendant denies being involved in any subversive activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept ownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have been made only under fear, threat and intimidation on his person and his family. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant, that the trial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful, and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7.

Issue: If defendants arrest, the search of his home, and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful.

Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendants house to arrest him upon the information given by Masamlok, they had neither search nor arrest warrant with themin wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, sec 2). As the Court held in Villanueva vs Querubin, the state, however powerful, doesnt have access to a mans home, his haven of refuge where his individuality can assert itself in his choice of welcome and in the kind of objects he wants around him. In the traditional formulation, a mans house, however humble, is his castle, and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by the government.

The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC:

a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence;b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it;c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

and the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126, Sec 12:

A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.

However, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC. At the time of defendants arrest, he wasnt in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document, and was not committing any subversive acthe was plowing his field. It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. An essential precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or actually have been committed first; it isnt enough to suspect a crime may have been committed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown.

In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents, assuming they were really illegal, the defendant was never informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest; thus the admissions obtained are in violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Sec 20 Art IV (now Sec 12, Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence.

Furthermore, the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation. His extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents are all inadmissible as evidence. In light of the aforementioned, defendant is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with which he has been charged. Subject firearm and alleged subversive documents have been disposed of in accordance with law.

The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile, while the government should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the lawless with the means at its command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws.

Milo v. salangaFACTSAn information for Arbitrary Detention was filed against herein private respondent (accused Barrio Captain Tuvera, Sr.) and some other private persons for maltreating petitioner Valdez by hitting him with butts of their guns and fist blows. Immediately thereafter, without legal grounds and with deliberate intent to deprive the latter of his constitutional liberty, accused respondent and two members of the police force of Mangsat conspired and helped one another in lodging and locking petitioner inside the municipal jail of Manaoag, Pangasinan for about eleven (11) hours.Accused-respondent then filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute the elements of said crime and that the proofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of the information. Petitioner Asst. Provincial Fiscal Milo filed an opposition thereto. Consequently, averring that accused-respondent was not a public officer who can be charged with Arbitrary Detention, respondent Judge Salanga granted the motion to quash in an order. Hence, this petition.ISSUEWhether or not accused-respondent, being a Barrio Captain, can be liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention.HELDYes. The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted that other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime. A perusal of the powers and function vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain except that in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction is smaller.Having the same duty of maintaining peace and order, both must be and are given the authority to detain or order detention. Noteworthy is the fact that even private respondent Tuvera himself admitted that with the aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain, could have led the arrest of petitioner Valdez.

ASTORGA vs. PEOPLEFacts:Private offended parties Elpidio Simon, Moises de la Cruz, WenefredoManiscan, Renato Militante,CrisantoPelias, SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Kr. and SPO1 RufoCapoquian, members of DENR RegionalOperations Group, were sent to Western Samar to conduct possible illegal logging activities.Upon investigation of the group, Mayor Benito Astorga was found to be the owner of two (2)boats. A heated altercation ensued and Mayor Astorga called for reinforcements. Ten armed menarrived in the scene. The offended parties were then brought to Mayor Astogas house wherethey had dinner and drinks and left at 2:30am. SPO1 Capoquian further admitted that it wasraining during the time of their detention.Mayor Astorga was convicted of arbitrary detention by the Sandiganbayan.

Issue:Whether Mayor Astorga is guilty of arbitrary detention.

Held:No. The elements of arbitrary detention are as follows:1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.2. That he detains a person.3. That the detention is without legal ground.The determinative factor in arbitrary detention is fear. The Court found no proof that Astorgainstilled fear in the minds of the offended parties. There was also no actual restraint imposed onthe offended parties. The events that transpired created reasonable doubt and are capable ofother interpretations. Mayor Astorga could have extended his hospitality and served dinner anddrinks to the offended parties. He could have advised them to stay in the island inasmuch as seatravel was rendered unsafe by the heavy rains. Astorga even ate and served alcoholic drinksduring dinner. The guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty. Astorga wasacquitted