Title
Arula vs. Espino
Case
G.R. No. L-28949
Decision Date
Jun 23, 1969
Jibin Arula, a civilian recruit injured in a 1968 Corregidor shooting, challenged military jurisdiction; Supreme Court ruled civil courts hold precedence over military tribunals in civilian cases.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28949)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Preliminary Litigation Background
    • The petitioner, Jibin Arula, filed an original petition for certiorari and/or prohibition seeking:
      • The annulment of Special Order 208, issued on April 6, 1968 by Brigadier General Romeo C. Espino, which constituted a general court-martial.
      • A permanent prohibition on the general court-martial (composed of various army personnel) from trying the case concerning the shooting and wounding of the petitioner.
    • The petition was filed on April 25, 1968, with the temporary restraining order being issued on April 26, 1968, effective immediately until further orders.
    • As the case advanced, various pleadings were submitted:
      • Respondents filed an answer opposing the preliminary injunction.
      • Several intervenors (including Capt. Alberto Soteco, MSgt. Benjamin Munaj, and others) and amici curiae (represented by Attorneys Barrera, Araneta, and Baizas) were granted leave to participate.
    • Subsequent procedural steps included:
      • The scheduling of a hearing on the injunction and merits (May 6, 1968).
      • The filing of supplemental pleadings and memoranda by both parties and intervenors in the ensuing months, with the case being reheard on August 26, 1968.
  • Factual Circumstances of the Incident
    • Recruitment and Movement of the Petitioner
      • On December 17, 1967, Arula was recruited by Capt. Teodoro R. Facelo of the Armed Forces of the Philippines at Simunul, Sulu for training.
      • On January 3, 1968, Arula along with other recruits was transported to Corregidor Island.
    • The Shooting Incident
      • On March 18, 1968, a shooting incident occurred at Corregidor, resulting in serious physical injuries to Arula.
      • Despite his injuries, Arula managed to flee Corregidor.
    • Initiation of Criminal Proceedings in the Civil Court
      • On March 23, 1968, Arula filed a criminal complaint with the city fiscal of Cavite City for frustrated murder against several accused, including Capt. Alberto Soteco, Benjamin Munar (Lt. Baqui), Reynaldo Munar (Lt. Rey), Eugenio Alcantara (Lt. Alcantara), and nine others.
      • On March 29, 1968, the city fiscal issued subpoenas to the accused, scheduling a preliminary investigation on April 3, 1968.
    • Coordination and Conflict Between Civil and Military Proceedings
      • Prior to the scheduled preliminary investigation, on April 2, 1968, Arula communicated to the commanding officer of the Philippine Army that he was not filing charges with military authorities since he had already filed a complaint with the city fiscal.
      • Army lawyers, on April 3, 1968, appeared on behalf of the accused before the city fiscal and secured a postponement of the preliminary investigation to April 16, 1968.
    • Military Pre-Trial Investigation and Convening of the Court-Martial
      • Brigadier General Romeo C. Espino, acting as the commanding general of the Philippine Army, directed Capt. Alfredo O. Pontejos to conduct a pre-trial investigation into the incident.
      • On April 6, 1968, Capt. Pontejos submitted a written pre-trial investigation report recommending trial by general court-martial for the accused under violations of Articles of War 94 and 97.
      • On the same day, Special Order 208 was issued by General Espino, appointing a general court-martial composed of the designated military personnel.
    • Chronology of Arrests, Charges, and Proceedings
      • Prior to and during the investigation, most of the implicated army personnel were placed under technical arrest and restricted to camp limits, with the timing of such orders (notably retroactive orders) contributing to the jurisdictional controversy.
      • The general court-martial began its proceedings on April 16, 1968, with the petitioner himself testifying as the first prosecution witness.
  • Jurisdictional and Procedural Disputes
    • Dispute Over Legal Personality and Applicability of Military Law
      • The petitioner contended that he is a civilian (not subject to military law) and that the shooting occurred outside a military reservation, arguing that his case had already been initiated in a civil court (CFI of Cavite).
      • The respondents maintained that:
        • All accused personnel are subject to military law.
ii. The shooting occurred on Corregidor Island, which remains within a military reservation as declared by Proclamation No. 69 (1948) despite EO 58’s designation of certain areas as national shrines. iii. The general court-martial acquired jurisdiction over the case before the civil court could take complete control.
  • Issue of Priority in Taking Jurisdiction
    • The key point of contention was whether the general court-martial, having acquired custody of the accused (via technical arrest and filing of charges) and pursuant to the rule enunciated in Crisologo vs. People, retained exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.
    • An underlying issue was whether the act of filing a criminal complaint with the city fiscal, without the accused having been taken into civil custody, was sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the civil court over the same offense.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction of the General Court-Martial
    • Whether the general court-martial has proper jurisdiction over the case concerning the shooting and wounding of Arula based on the facts that:
      • The accused are persons subject to military law.
      • The offense occurred within what is considered a military reservation.
  • Legal Personality and the Applicability of Military Law
    • Whether the petitioner, as a complaining witness and injured party, is a person subject to military law and thus properly aggrieved by the general court-martial’s proceedings.
  • Conflict Between Military and Civil Proceedings
    • Whether the filing of a criminal complaint with the city fiscal of Cavite (which initiated preliminary investigation in the civil system) precluded or affected the jurisdiction of the military court, considering that the military acquired custody of the accused before the civil court could proceed.
  • Validity of the Military Command’s Actions
    • Whether Brigadier General Espino acted within his authority in hastily convening a general court-martial, despite criticisms of potential lack of thorough pre-trial investigation and alleged abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms