The inquest prosecutor has ruled as valid the warrantless arrest of 25-year-old public school teacher Ronnel Mas, who was arrested May 11 by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) over a post on Twitter offering P50 million to kill President Rodrigo Duterte.
"Yes," Prosecutor General Ben Malcontento said in a text message when asked whether the warrantless arrest was upheld during inquest.
"Charges of inciting to sedition [will be filed] in Zambales likely first thing next week," Malcontento said.
Malcontento heads the National Prosecution Service (NPS), which is under the Department of Justice (DOJ). (READ: Salesman arrested, jailed for calling Duterte 'crazy')
Mas was arrested May 11 and will likely spend the weekend in jail.
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code imposes a deadline – 12 hours, 18 hours, or 36 hours depending on the offense – for when a person arrested should be charged in court.
That deadline has lapsed in Mas' case, and he cannot post bail until a charge is filed in court.
But Malcontento said "you need not wait for the inquest resolution before one can post bail."
Asked for other ways to post bail, Malcontento said "that's his call and the call of his defense team because from the start that is bailable."
Other possible ways to post bail without being charged is filing a petition for bail before a court, or a petition for the writ of habeas corpus.
Asked why Mas cannot be charged sooner given the limitations of the lockdown on courts, Malcontento said: "Courts are open for bail purposes."
When someone is arrested without a warrant, he automatically undergoes inquest, which is a speedy hearing. If the person wants a full-blown hearing, he can waive his rights under Article 125 and request for a preliminary investigation.
But Malcontento said there is "no more preliminary investigation."
Malcontento also did not expound why the warrantless arrest was ruled as valid.
"There were other factors, leave it at that," said the prosecutor general and did not expound.
One of the grounds for a valid warrantless arrest is if you are caught in the act. Caught in the act was then validly applied to offenses classified as "continuing crimes," for example, rebellion.
"Even when the person is not doing anything unlawful, he's walking on the street, he's brushing his teeth, she's singing karaoke, as long as that person is said to be a rebel then that person is committing a crime in the presence of the officer," said former Supreme Court spokesperson Ted Te in an earlier Rappler Talk interview.
Continuing crime in the context of cyberlibel or inciting to sedition is a deviation from precedent, said human rights lawyer Chel Diokno, the chairman of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).
"Continuing crime is really intended for a crime like kidnapping; while you are holding a person against his will and for every single day or hour that you're doing that, they can arrest you," said Diokno in a Rappler Talk interview.
In the warrantless arrest of webmaster Rodel Jayme, who had helped upload the Bikoy videos, the DOJ said: "Videos and articles were still circulating online and excerpts of the videos were still being shown on television or heard over the radio, clearly, an offense is still being committed, and an arrest of respondent without a warrant is justified."
"I totally disagree with the government's interpretation of that...when you put something on the internet, that's just one act, and if you ask them, how many count will you file, they will tell you it's just one count because it's one publication, I don't think that is a valid way of interpreting the law on warrantless arrest," Diokno said.
Te said one of the earlier cases that "propagated" the principle of a continuing arrest is the case Umil vs Ramos involving communist rebels, where the Supreme Court said rebellion can be a continuing crime.
"It's high time that the Supreme Court revisits that justification because it's very very dangerous, for purposes of arrest, it's dangerous if it's unclear which offenses are continuing," Te said, adding that inciting to sedition was not mentioned in the said case. – Rappler.com