d2015member Ilagan v. Juan Ponce Enrile (Minister of National Defense) (1985), Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos (Acting Chief of Staff AFP), Brig. Gen.Dionisio Tan-Gatue (PC-INP Regional Commander)Melencio-Herrera, J.This is a petition for Habeas Corpus filed the the IBP, FLAG, and the Movement of Attys for Brotherhood, Integrity, and Nationalismon behalf of Attys. Ilagan, Arellano, and Risonar, Jr.
Atty. Ilagan was arrested in Davao City
By elements of the PC-INP
Detained in Camp Catitipan
On the basis of a mission order allegedly issued ty Ministry of National Defense
Same day, 1 of the attys who visited Atty. Ilagan (Atty. Arellano) was also arrested and detained on the basis of anunsigned Mission Order
Thereafter, military told IBP Davao that Atty Risonar was to be arrested, too.
Atty Risonar went to Camp Catitipan to veify his arrest papers
Atty Risonar was detained on the basis of a Mission Order signed by the Regional Unified Commander
A petition for habeas corpus was filed on the ground of illegal arrest, violative of the Consti (since no arrest can be madeon the basis of Mission Orders)
They also claim that there is a military campaign to harass lawyers involved in national security cases
Enrile et al. said that:
Attys were arrested on the basis of a PDA issued by the President
Writ of habeas corpus is suspended by Proc No. 2045-A
Accdg to Garcia-Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile, et al, Courts do not have the authority to inquire into validity of detention of persons because of Proc No. 2045-A
There is a state of rebellion in Davao City and the attys played active roles in organizing mass actions of theCPP and NDF
During hearing, Enrile et al presented evidence of subversive activities in Davao.
Due to lack of evidence linking the attys to the subversion, court ordered their temporary release
The next day, the petitioners filed a Motion stating that the attys were still not released. Also, they wanted the attys to bereleased to the custody of the principal counsel of petioners at the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Concepcion)
Enrile et al opposed this saying that:
There is a suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
The attys were not arrested for lawyer acts but for their subversive acts
Enrile et al filed an information for rebellion against the attys in the RTC-Davao
Petitioners say that the “Welgang Bayans” were in legitimate exrcise of right of expression and assembly to petition
government for redress of grievances
Enrile et al answered saying that petition for habeas corpus has been rendered moot and academic because of the filingof an information against the attys for rebellion and the issuance of a warrant of arrest against them. The proper remedy isa to quash the warrant of arrest.
The function of the special proceeding of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of detention.
Now that the attys' detention is by virtue of a judicial order in relation to criminal cases filed against them, theremedy of habeas corpus no longer lies.
Petitioners say that since there was no preliminary investigation, info for rebellion is void.
Enrile et al countered by saying that a preliminary investigation was not necessary since the attys were lawfully arrestedwithout a warrant.Issue: Is a petition for habeas corpus proper?Held: No.Ratio:Section 7, Rule 112, of the 1985 Rules on CrimPro provides:
When accused lawfully arrested without warrant
.- When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for anoffense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peaceofficer or fiscal without preliminary investigation having been first conducted on the basis of the affidavit of the offendedparty or arrested officer or person.
However, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation bya proper officer in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RevisedPenal Code, as amended, with the assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible personof his choice. Notwithstanding such waiver, he may apply for bail as provided in the corresponding rule and theinvestigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, the accused may withinfive (5) days from the time he learns of the filing of the information, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same rightto adduce evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule.Section 5, Rule 113 enumerates the instances when an arrest without warrant is lawful.
Arrest without warrant; when lawful
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: