CRIMPRO NOTES (PROFESSOR L. D. BATTAD)HABEAS CORPUSNotes:WHEN is the writ available?

When there is actual and effective, and not merely nominal and moral restraint is required1 however, actual physical restraint is not always required; any restraint which will prejudice freedom of action is sufficient2.

Available also, when as a CONSEQUENCE a judicial proceeding:(a) there is a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting from the restraint(b) court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence(c) whenever excessive penalty is imposed3

The writ also applies when the judgement that caused the illegal detention is no longer appealable4 or when such judgement has become final and executory and cannot be amended to give retroactive effect per Art 22 RPC5.

To enable parents to recover their children although they may be in the custody of third persons on their own volition.6

WHEN is the writ NOT available? When information is invalid due to invalid preliminary investigations and that the offense has already

prescribed. (The proper remedy is investigation or reinvestigation of the court the issued the warrant of commitment)

Prescription of offense (Proper remedy is a motion to quash prior arraignment, otherwise the remedy is deemed waived)

When restraint is voluntary 7 Rule 102 Sec 4 likewise provides when the writ is not available. The term process therein includes those issued

by governmental agencies authorized to order his confinement ei., Deportation Board.

Ilagan v Enrile (Melencio-Herrera, 1985)8

Petitioners: Activist-lawyers Laurente Ilagan, Antonio Arellano, Marcos Risonar; IBP, FLAG, MABINIRespondents: Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, Acting Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos, etc.

DOCTRINE: Since function of habeas corpus is to inquire into legality of detention, it cannot be granted to those who are already in prison/in custody. Repressive – Information even if filed late can cure an illegal arrest.

FACTS: Davao laywer Laurente Ilagan was arrested by the military in Davao City on May 10, 1985 while snacking with

friends outside his office. Ilagan is chairman of BAYAN-Mindanao. His arresters took him on the basis of an unsigned “mission order” issued by the Ministry of National Defense.

He was detained at Camp Catitipan. Atty. Antonio Arellano, while visiting Ilagan in jail that same day, was also arrested. Arellano is a law professor

at the Ateneo de Davao law school, and secretary-general of BAYAN-Mindanao. He had visited Atty. Arellano along with 14 other IBP layers.

Two days later, the military told IBP Atty. Marcos Risonar would also be arrested. He went to the Camp Catitipan to verify this, and was thereafter detained.

ORIGINAL PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS filed by the three lawyers and in their behalf by lawyers groups. The petition claimed that arrests based on mission orders are illegal, and that this appears to be a military campaign to harass lawyers involved in national security cases.

The SC granted the writ on May 16, set hearing on May 23. Government’s reply (return): The arrests were based on preventive detention actions (PDA)9 issued by

President Marcos in January, and Mindanao was in a state of rebellion, as evidenced by subversive documents allegedly seized from the lawyers. Asked for denial of petition.

Hearing (on May 23): Presentation of evidence to establish prima facie case, but SC ordered the temporary release of the lawyers upon recognizance to their counsels: retired Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and retired Associate Justice J. B. L. Reyes.

Lawyers’ manifestation (on May 24): Lawyers still not released. Government’s motion for reconsideration (on May 27): Writ of habeas corpus suspended in Mindanao, thus the

court has no jurisdiction. Also, lawyers were arrested for specific acts of rebellion and economic sabotage, as

1 Zagala vs Illustre 2 Moncupa vs Enrile3 Cruz vs Dir. Of Prisons4 Chavez vs CA5 Directo vs Dir. Of Prisons6 Salvana vs Gaela7 Kelly etc., vs Dir. Of Prisons8 Krissy Conti, who likes this case so much 9 Proclamation No. 2045 lifted Martial Law, but the amendment Proclamation No. 2045-A, kept suspended the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the two autonomous regions of Mindanao and in all other places with respect to political crimes.

well as leadership in the CPP, not for “lawyering”. The three were allegedly involved in the welgang bayan in Davao City.

Government’s manifestation (on May 28): Information for rebellion filed at RTC Davao, and warrants of arrests have been issued already. Asked again for petition to be dismissed for being moot.

Lawyers’ opposition : The detained were not given benefit of preliminary investigation, and were denied constitutional right of due process so the information must be voided.

The two parties thereafter traded motions and comments on the welgang bayan as an exercise of freedom of speech, and of the validity of Proc. No. 2095-A and the PDAs.

ISSUE: WON habeas corpus may be granted to the lawyers charged with rebellion even though they have been illegally arrested, and have not been subject to preliminary investigation

HELD: NO. The function of the special proceeding of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of detention. Now, the lawyers are detained by virtue of a judicial order (i.e. the late warrants) so remedy is no longer available. The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic, motion for reconsideration is granted.

RATIO: Sec. 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court: The writ is not allowed when the person is already in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge.Plus Sec. 14, Rule 102: A prisoner who is lawfully committed for an offense punishable by death shall not be released, discharged or bailed.

If the lawyers question their detention because of improper arrest, or that no preliminary investigation has been conducted, the remedy is a quashal of the warrant of arrest and/or the information.

The court declined to comment on the legality of the arrests. “As to whether the detained attorneys fall under either of the (instances of in flagrante delicto, paragraphs a and b Rule 113) is a question of fact, which will need the presentation of evidence…”

Likewise with the question on the absence of preliminary investigation: the Court is not called upon to “dismiss the information but hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own investigation or require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.” Further, the right to PI is waivable, hence does not affect the validity of proceedings.

Melencio-Herrera, addition opinion: Lawyers are not entitled to bail because the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. So RTC should hear the case immediately to determine right away if the evidence is flimsy. RTC is also entitled to “procedural due process” so it should not be deprived of its jurisdiction, and must be given opportunity to hear the substantial merits of the case.

Also, when issuing PDAs, the arrested individuals must be furnished with the original or a certified true copy of the document.

Teehankee10, dissent: If only the SC had ordered the immediate compliance with its first decision, the lawyers would not be in custody now.

1) On the arrests and detention – Unlawful, invalid because the military violated the constitutional rights of the lawyers. They have a right to PI and to due process, both violated in the course of the debacle. They are not mere informalities or defects in the process. “A violation of a constitutional right deprives the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights.”11

2) On the people’s right to assembly – Sole limitation to freedom of expression is if it is a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest. In fact, the police has the duty to extend protection to the demonstrators.

3) On evidence and the preservation of liberties and motives – The good motive may be to preserve peace and order in Mindanao, but the military’s zealousness is misplaced. There is no tenable, concrete evidence that has been submitted other than the accusations that BAYAN is communist-led or –infiltrated. The Court also warned against military’s practice of hiring “professional witnesses”.

4) On political discussion – Protection is especially mandated for political discussion. Per the Salonga v Pano case: “Political discussion is essential to the ascertainment of political truth. It cannot be the basis of criminal indictments.”

5) On the PDAs – No comment on constitutionality because it is the subject of a separate petition. At the very least, the PDAs were stale and inoperative. They were issued on January 25, 1985. PDAs are only valid for service within 24 hours in Manila, and 48 hours outside.

10 Is later happier in Agcaoili v Enrile habeas corpus case. “I write this concurrence to record and celebrate the historical fact that with the true win of the people expressed against all odds in the February 7, 1986 snap elections and the four glorious days of bloodless revolution from February 22nd to February 25th…” Corazon Aquino had revoked Proclamation 2045 and 2045-A immediately after being sworn president.11 Quoted from PBM Employees v PBM Co.

6) On civilian supremacy – the Court already granted the writ, but the military refused to comply! That is an affront to the judiciary, which though the weakest department, is the “guardian and final arbiter” of the constitution.

Velasco vs CA 12 Notes:

Prof. Te’s Argument: LACK OF JURISDICTION. Since the arrest was invalid (warrantless and does not fall under the exceptions mentioned in Rule 113 ROC), the complaint must be dismissed, the court has not acquired jurisdiction of Larkins person. It should be noted that the prior arrest was for violation of BP 22, which for the record Larkins has posted bail and was granted. His continued detention was subsequently illegal since the arrest was not effected with a warrant for the crime of rape. BUT since the former counsel of Larkins has already instituted a MOTION FOR BAIL, it was in effect a waiver for the alleged illegal warrantless arrest and has subsequently barred the writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the subsequent filing of motion to dismiss was a mere afterthought on the part of the defense.

Moncupa vs Enrile 13 Doctrine: A writ for habeas corpus may lie not only when there is physical restraint. Whenever a person is unlawfully denied one or more of his constitutional freedoms the courts have authority to inquire into the validity of such restraint.

People vs Alojado 14 Doctrine: Illegality or irregularity of arrests must be questioned prior arraignment or prior entering of plea, subsequent submission to a courts jurisdiction is an implied waiver. Such voluntary submission to the court herein is shown when he entered his plea and thereafter participated actively in the trial.

People vs Rondero 15 Doctrine: Irregularity of arrest was deemed waived when instead of quashing information for lack of jurisdiction accused voluntarily submitted himself to the courts’ jurisdiction by entering his plea.

Umil vs. Ramos (Per curiam, 1990) 16

Nature: Petitions for Habeas CorpusFacts:

This is a consolidated case on 8 petitions for habeas corpus: (1) GR 81567, Umil v. Ramos; (2-3) GR 84581-82, Roque and Buenaobra v. De Villa and Montano; (4-5) GR 84583-84, Anonuevo and Casiple v. Ramos, et al.; (6) GR 83162, Ocaya and Rivera v. Aguirre, et al.; (7) GR 85727, Espiritu v. Lim and Reyes; (8) Nazareno v. Medina, et al.

The petitioners in the said cases claim that they were unlawfully detained as there were no warrants of arrest against them and that they did not undergo preliminary investigation. The respondents however argue that the arrests made on the petitioners fall within the ambit specified by law.

In the first case, Rolando Dural a.k.a. Ronnie Javelon was an NPA member who was reportedly being treated for a gunshot wound in St. Agnes Hospital in the Roosevelt Area when he was arrested. He was the suspect in the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day before, where witnesses saw that the gunman stepped on the hood of the CAPCOM vehicle and opened fire on the soldiers inside. He was charged with Double Murder and Assault against Agents or Persons in Authority. With Dural were Roberto Umil and Renato Villanueva. The latter two, posted bail and were released; this mooted the HC writ which were granted them weeks earlier. While Dural’s warrantless arrest was seemingly unjustified, his membership with NPA justified it as subversion was a continuing offense.

In the second and third case, Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra were apprehended in the house of Renato ‘Ka Mong’ Constantino which was under surveillance for days due to information from a captured NPA member, Rogelio Ramos. Roque was a member of the National United Front Commission, a section of the CPP-NPA, and was found to possess subversive documents stored in her sister’s house in Caloocan which she admitted ownership of. Buenaobra was a courier for NPA who was also apprehended while about to deliver a message to Constantino in his house in Marikina. Buenaobra was arrested the night he went to Constantino’s house. Roque was found the next day after the letter found in Buenaobra’s possession pointed to their location. Said location was searched and more documents, allegedly belonging to the outlawed organization, were found. Both were charged with violation of the Anti-Subversion Act (Roque two days after she was arrested, while Buenobra unstated). Roque filed for habeas corpus but Buenaobra manifested intent to stay in Camp Crame.

In the fourth and fifth case, Domingo Anonuevo a.k.a. Ka Ted and Ramon Casiple a.k.a. Ka Totoy were also members of the NUFC (National United Front Commission) who were arrested when they visited the Constantino residence which was under surveillance. After seeing ‘bulging’ objects in their waist, military had them frisked. In their possession were found subversive documents as well as guns and ammunitions. They claim that the arrest is illegal for want of arrest warrant and preliminary investigation.

12 Jessa Alvarez – refer to previous consolidation 7/15/0913 Vams Villar14 Dianne delos Reyes15 Grace Lazaro16 Doms Obias

In the sixth case, Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car with a companion, Danny Rivera, at a house in Marikina owned by a certain Benito Tiamson which was under surveillance for reports of being NPA. She was found to be carrying subversive documents as well as a number of ammunitions for a .45 caliber gun without license. Danny Rivera was released from custody, while Ocaya filed this action.

In the seventh case, Deogracias Espiritu was a leader in a citizens group for the transport sector (PISTON) who petitioned for habeas corpus against General Fred Lim for the arrest made on him in an information filed for violation of Article 142 of the RPC, Inciting to Sedition. The alleged seditious act imputed on him was in connection with the planned national transport strike where on two occasions (NPC press conference and a meeting with his organization later that afternoon) he allegedly told his fellow members to go on with the strike until it gets messy in order for the government to give in to their requests. His arrest was done by police agents who asked his sister and pretended to be interested in hiring his jeepney but brought him to the station for interrogation where this charge was used to imprison him. He was fast asleep in his house at 5am when the police came to his house in Sta. Ana, Manila. He was presented before Gen. Lim at 9am whoordered his arrest and detention.

In the eighth case, Ramil Regala, who was arrested for killing Romulo Bunye II in Muntinlupa on the morning of 14 Dec 1988, pointed to Narciso Nazareno as one of his accomplices in the commission of the crime. Regala was brought to the station for questioning without the warrant. Since the evidence against him was strong and that a case was already filed against them in the Makati RTC, his HC petition was denied (also following a denial for a motion to bail, while his co-accused was granted bail).

IssueWON Habeas Corpus would avail for petitioners – NO, except Espiritu vs Lim case

HeldSec. 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 be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 11217.

NO. Umil was arrested not for his alleged commission of the double murder and assault but for being a member of the NPA, which was considered a continuing offense. The case involving CAPCOM was already tried and he and a Bernardo Itucal Jr. were sentenced. He was already serving his time and so HC was no longer available to him.

NO. Same with Dural, her (Roque) membership with NUFC was a continuing offense so her arrest was justified. Another justification was her illegal possession of ammunition, grenade, and ‘subversive’ documents which was flagrante delicti.

NO. Anonuevo and Casiple, aside from being admitted members of the NUCP, were also in possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition when they were arrested, thus doing away with the warrant requirement. As to the want of preliminary investigation, the police are allowed under Section 7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court to file information even without preliminary investigation. They also refused to sign the waiver pursuant to Article 125 of the RPC nor asked for preliminary investigation when the informations were filed against them.

NO. Ocaya’s illegal possession of ammunition was enough justification for her warrantless arrest. No preliminary investigation as it was a warrantless arrest.

The court was not convinced in the allegation of Roque, Casiple, Anonuevo, and Ocaya that the ammunitions, firearms, and documents found in their possession were ‘planted’ by the military. The circumstances surrounding their arrest (particularly the visit to the Constantino house in Marikina) were considered by the military to be reasonable grounds to confirm their intel info.

NO. There was valid information against Espiritu that made his arrest legal even without warrant. The respondents also claimed that he was arrested when he just committed the offense, since he was arrested in the afternoon of the day when he was alleged to have committed the offense. His bail however, must be lowered to 10K since 60K was excessive.

17 Sec. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. – When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person. Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception. After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.

NO. Ramil Regala’s positive implication of Nazareno in the killing allows the warrantless arrest made on him, aside from the information already filed against their group. His request for bail was also denied.

Section 4, Rule 102 of the RoC provides that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, or if such person is charged before any court, the writ will not be allowed.

Ilagan doctrine upheld which said that writ of habeas corpus no longer available after an information is filed against person detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment is issued by the court where said information has been filed.

Disposition: Petitions dismissed, except that in the case of Espiritu, the bail bond to be posted lowered

Cruz, J. Dissenting and concurring: Concurs with the decision but dissents insofar as ponencia upholds doctrine in Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile that subversion is a continuing offense to justify warrantless arrest, which he considers to be a very dangerous doctrine. This doctrine should be regarded as it is “one of the disgraceful vestiges of the past dictatorship” and must therefore be discarded.

Feliciano, J. Concurring: Concurs in the result of the 8 cases but with reservations on Umil and Espiritu cases. For the Umil case, the categorical statement of the court that “the crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes” was made but without any visible effort to carefully examine the basis, scope and meaning of such sweeping statement. The Garcia-Padilla case did not specify specific offenses regarded to be in the nature of continuing offenses. It appears that even sedition may be included in the specification just stated at least for the purposes of answering the question on the legality of Espiritu’s arrest.

Sarmiento, J.18 Dissenting: Umil – If Dural was arrested for subversion, he should have been charged with the same and not with Double Murder with Assault upon Agents of Authority. Subversion is defined as “knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliating oneself with becoming, remaining a member of the CPP or its successors or of any subversive association as defined in sections 2 and 3 hereof…” and Dural at the time he was taken was not performing any overt act that he was a rebel.The military does not have personal knowledge as they only rely in “confidential information” which is at best, hearsay. The conclusion that Dural was NPA, without concrete evidence, was contrary to the doctrine of presumption of innocence until and unless proven guilty.Buenaobra – Court ruled that HC is moot and academic following Buenabora’s alleged desire to stay in the PC-INP stockade, but this is not enough reason to dismiss the petition. SC must make sure Buenaobra made his choice freely and voluntarily. His and Roque’s admission is a naked contention of the military.Añonuevo – That Añonueva and Casiple are admittedly members of the NUFC and that subversive materials and unilicensed firearms were found in there possession are barren claims of the military.Ocaya – There was no basis in holding Ocaya probably guilty. It was another successful fishing expedition for the military.Espiritu – He was arrested the day after. It does not fall anywhere within the exceptions in warrantles arrests. Subsequent filing of information does not justify his continued detention. An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court (ROC Rukle 110 § 4).Nazareno – The arrest was made 14 days after the crime was allegedyly committed. How could it fall in the exceptions under Rule 113?The rulings in Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile (subversion as continuing offense) and Ilagan vs. Enrile (curing of illegal arrest by subsequent filing of information) have lost their luster. The Garcia-Padilla is no longer good law as it is 1) repugnant to due process of law i.e. judges’ personal determination of probable cause for a warrant to be issued and granting of bail in bailable offenses; 2) it leaves citizens’ liberty to whims of one man (in cases of emergency, the President).Constitutional rights of petitioners to remain silent and to have access to independent counsel have also been denied them. The court did not pass upon the validity of the alleged extrajudicial confessions absent any showing that they were apprised of their constitutional rights.

Umil v. Ramos (1991, per curiam ) 19 This is the resolution of the motions for reconsideration with regard to the court's dismissal of 7 out of 8 habeas corpus petitions promulgated on July 9,1990. Since the facts of the case are the same, I will just zero in on the ratio of the resolution. In my opinion, this resolution is meant to answer the numerous discontented/ disbelieving commentaries (on the 1990 Umil case).

Issue WON the denial of writ of habeas corpus was proper

HeldThe (1990) decision did not rule that mere suspicion that one is a Communist Party or New People's Army member is a valid ground for his arrest without warrant. On the contrary, what the Court did in general is to apply long existing laws (like the Anti-Subversion law and the law outlawing the CPP and penalizing membership therein) to the factual

18 Quotable quote: “If this dissent can not gain any adherent for now, let it nevertheless go on record as a plea to posterity and an appeal for tolerance of opinions with which we not only disagree, but opinions we loathe.”19 Cams Maranan

situations in the several petitions. From such application, the court held that there is no merit in the present motions for reconsideration.

At the outset, the said petitions are petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Since the writ of habeas corpus exists as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint,it can be deduced that the function of this special proceeding is to inquire into the legality of one's detention, so that if the detention is illegal, the court may order the release of the detainee.

In resolving the petitions (in the 1990 case), the Court looked into WON the warrantless arrests were made in accordance with law since if the arrests were valid (made in accordance with law), it would follow that the detention resulting from such arrests is also in accordance with law.20

Dissents:

Rolando Dural: (J. Gutierrez, Jr.:) To base warrantless arrests on the doctrine of continuing offense is to give license to the illegal detention of persons based on pure suspicion.

Deogracias Espiritu: (C.J. Fernan:) Inciting to sedition is not a continuous crime for which the offender may be arrested without a warrant duly issued by the proper authority. Therefore, the police should have procured a warrant of arrest based on the seditious statement uttered by Espiritu(J. Gutierrez, Jr.:) The arrest of Espiritu on the ground that he was inciting to sedition is a clear infringement of an individual's freedom of speech.(J. Sarmiento:) The accused statement is in the category of free speech x x x because it does not contain enough “fighting words” recognized to be seditious

Alfredo Nazareno: (J. Gutierrez, Jr.:) To say that the offense “has in fact been committed” even if 14 days have lapsed is to stretch the rule21 on warrantless arrests into ridiculous limits

Amelia Roque, Wilfredo Buenaobra, Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon Casiple, and Vicky Ocaya: (J. Sarmiento:) The military had (again) acted on mere tips meaning they do not have personal knowledge of the offense committed by the said individuals therefore, the arrests of these persons can not fall under Rule 113 Section 5(b).Bagcal v Villaraza22

(Abad-Santos, 1983)Appeal from the decision of the CFI of Cagayan de Oro CityFacts: Jose Bagcal was arrested on Feb. 28, 1982 without warrant by the Philippine constabulary and has been detained

since then. He filed a petition asking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The SC issued the writ returnable to the Executive Judge of CFI of Cagayan de Oro.

After due hearing, Judge Rosete rendered the decision denying the petition for the release of the petitioner by ordering Judge Villaraza to hear the petition for bail if the evidence is strong and if not, to fix the bail.

On August, 1982, the City Fiscal filed and information for murder against petitioner with the MTC of Cagayan de Oro presided by Judge Villaraza. The informationw as accompanied by the affidavits of several persons. They were not subscribed before Judge Villaraza who did not ask the affiants to ratify their oaths nor did he ask them searching questions; the information has no certification by the city fiscal that he had conducted a preliminary investigation. If the Fiscal had conducted a preliminary investigation, the information should have been filed in the CFI ehich had jurisdiction to try the case on its merits. It is obvious that the information was filed with Judge Villaraza so that he would conduct a preliminary examination and thereafter issue a warrant of arrest.

Judge Villaraza issued a warrant of arrest. The circumstances attending the issuance of the warrant of arrest have been invoked in the petition for habeas corpus.

Petitioner claims that the warrant of arrest should not have been issued without a preliminary examination of the witnesses.

Issue: WON petitioner is entitled to bail.Held:Although the warrant of arrest was irregularly issued, any infirmity attached to it was cured when the petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by applying for the writ and submitting a memorandum in support thereof and filing a motion for reconsideration when his application was denied.

20 Aside from these reiterations and clarificatory notes, everything in the ratio is similar to the 1990 decision21 Rule 113. Sec 5(b) Arrest without warrant ; when lawful – A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:(b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed it. 22 Far Salvador

Judge Rosete’s decision is affirmed with the modification that CFI of Cagayan de Oro City and not the MTC should conduct a hearing on the application for bail. If he finds the evidence against petitioner to be strong, he should deny bail but if he finds the evidence not sufficiently strong, he should grant bail.