B/Gen. Jose Comendador Vs. Gen. Renato S. De Villa

B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, B/GEN. MARCELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO PN, CAPT. MANUEL ISON PN, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO PN (M), LTC. ARSENIO TECSON PA, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ PA, LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO PA, LTC. ERICSON AURELIO PA, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT PA, LTC. FRANKLIN BRAWNER PA, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS PA, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PENA PN (M): MAJ. LEUVINO VALENCIA PA, CAPT. FLORENCIO FLORES PA, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO PA, CAPT. DANILO LIM PA, CAPT. ELMER AMON PAF CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, and LT. JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, 

vs.

B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA, and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14, respondents.


G.R. No. 96948, August 2, 1991


Facts:

Petitioners are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and were charged with violations of Articles of War in relation with their alleged participation in a failed coup d'etat. The charges against them are violations of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder).

A Pretrial investigation was constituted before being referred to the General Court Martial (GCM). The petitioners were, given several, opportunities to present their side in the pretrial investigation, however, PTI panel resolved to recommend that the charges be referred to the GCM, due to failure of the petitioners to submit their counter affidavits.

The PTI panel was justified in referring the charges to GCM No. 14 without waiting for the petitioners to submit their defense. Failure of pretrial investigation does not deprive a General Court Martial of jurisdiction, because a PTI is only directory, not mandatory.

In the GCM  No. 14 on May 15, 1990 hearing, Petitioners manifested that they were exercising their rights to raise peremptory challenges against the President and members of the General Court Martial No. 14. They invoked Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 for this purpose. GCM No. 14 ruled, however, that peremptory challenges had been discontinued under P.D. No. 39.

Petitioners seek certiorari against its ruling denying them the right to peremptory right/challenge as granted by Article 18 of the Articles of War.

Issue:

Whether or Not the right to peremptory challenge provided by Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 (Articles of War) has been discontinued under P.D. No. 39.

Held:

No. The petitioners have a peremptory right. When the martial law ended, General Order No. 8 was revoked and military tribunals were dissolved. Thus, the reason for the existence of P.D. No. 39 ceased automatically. When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex.

President Marcos issued General Order No. 8, to empower the Chief of Staff or the AFP to create military tribunals for the cases of military personnel. P.D. No. 39 was issued to implement G.O. No. 8. This decree disallowed Peremptory challenge.

When President Marcos issued Proc. No. 2045 proclaiming the termination of the martial law, G.O. No. 8 also ended and military tribunals were dissolved upon final determination of pending cases. With this, P.D. No. 39 ceased automatically.

Applying the basic canon of Statutory Construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases, the Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the right to peremptory challenge became ineffective again, and now the petitioners can exercise the right to Peremptory Challenge.

Note:

 Article 18 of the Articles of War entitle "each side" to one peremptory challenge, with sole provisio that "the law member of court shall not be challenged except for cause."

A Peremptory Challenge is afforded to an accused who, whether rightly or wrongly, honestly feels that the member of the court peremptorily challenged by him cannot sit in judgment over him, impartially. Every accused is entitled to fair trial. It allows the accused to reject a member of the court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMRC) Vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Imelda Salazar

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMRC), Petitioner Vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Imelda Salazar, Respondents G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992 Facts: Private Respondent, "Imelda Salazar" was employed as general systems analyst of Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. (GMRC) While Delfin Saldivar, her close friend, was employed as technical operations' support manager in May 1982. Petitioner GMRC investigated Saldivar's activities due to the reports indicating that the company equipment and spare parts were in custody of Saldivar. The internal audit report also indicated that Saldivar entered into a partnership with Richard A. Yambao, owner and manager of Eledon Engineering Services (Elecon), a supplier often recommended by Saldivar to the petitioner. It also appeared in the course of Maramara's investigation that Imelda Salazar violated company regulations by involving herself in transactions with conflict of interest with t...
Read more

The Director of Lands Vs. Court of Appeals

The Director of Lands, Petitioner Vs. Court of Appeals and Teodoro Abistado, substituted by Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado, Respondents. G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997 Facts : Teodoro Abistado, private respondent, Filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree. The application was docketed as Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 86 and assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. During the pendency of the case, Teodoro Abistado died and was substituted by his children - Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold, and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado, who were all represented by their aunt Josefa Abistado, ad litem ( act in which a lawsuit has a representative in behalf of children not capable of representation.) Land Registration Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction in compliance with the mandatory p...
Read more

The People of the Philippines Vs. Patricio Amigo

The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee Vs. Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot," Accused-Appellant G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996 Facts: On December 29, 1989 at around 1:00 Pm, Benito Ng Suy was driving their gray Ford Fiera back home, with his daughters, Jocelyn Ng Suy and a younger one together with his two year old son. An accidental head on collision occurred between the Fiera and the Tamaraw being driven by one Virgillio Abogado, with Abogado was the accused, Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot". The collision caused slight damage to the right bumper of the Tamaraw. While Abogado and Benito were having a verbal confrontation, Patricio approached Benito asking the latter to leave the incident as it was only a minor incident. However, Benito said that Patricio should not interfere, which made Patricio irritated and caused the latter to stab Benito, rendering the victim into a critical condition which later caused his death due to a sepsis infecti...
Read more