Case Digest (G.R. No. 88555)
Facts:
The case involves Eduardo N. Aswat as the petitioner and Brigadier General Alejandro Galido, in his capacity as the Commander of the Southern Luzon Command (SOLCOM) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as the respondent. The events leading to this case began on December 29, 1988, when Aswat, a Private First Class, was involved in a shooting incident in Dominican Hills, Baguio City, which resulted in the death of Felix B. Nebres, a Corporal and fellow enlisted man. At the time of the incident, Aswat was assigned as the caretaker of Brigadier General Galido's resthouse in Baguio, while Nebres served as a personal driver for Galido's wife. Following the shooting, Aswat voluntarily surrendered to the local police and was initially detained at the Baguio City Jail before being transferred to a SOLCOM detention cell on December 31, 1988. On April 20, 1989, he was charged with homicide before a SOLCOM General Court-Martial (SOLCOM-GCM) under Article 94 of the Articles of ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 88555)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Eduardo N. Aswat, a Private First Class in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), assigned to the Southern Luzon Command (SOLCOM).
- Respondent: Brigadier-General Alejandro Galido, Commander of SOLCOM, who convened the General Court-Martial (GCM) to try the petitioner.
Incident:
- On December 29, 1988, petitioner was involved in a shooting incident at Dominican Hills, Baguio City, resulting in the death of Corporal Felix B. Nebres, also an enlisted man of the AFP.
- Petitioner voluntarily surrendered to Baguio City police authorities and was briefly detained at the Baguio City Jail before being transferred to a SOLCOM detention cell on December 31, 1988.
Charges:
- On April 20, 1989, petitioner was charged before the SOLCOM-GCM with violation of Article 94 of the Articles of War (A.W.), specifically for homicide.
Petitioner’s Claims:
- The offense was committed outside a military installation, making it cognizable by a civilian court, not a military court.
- He is entitled to bail as a matter of right under Section 13, Article III of the Constitution.
- He should receive his base pay and other pay during detention, in addition to the allowances he has been receiving.
Procedural History:
- The Court en banc issued a writ of habeas corpus and required the respondent to make a return of the writ.
- The Third Division of the Court heard the case and required the parties to file memoranda.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Jurisdiction of Military Courts:
- Article 94 of the Articles of War, as amended, extends the jurisdiction of military courts to offenses committed outside military reservations, provided both the accused and the offended party are subject to military law. This amendment removed the distinction between offenses committed inside and outside military installations.
Right to Bail for Military Personnel:
- The right to bail is not absolute for military personnel. The military’s unique structure, discipline requirements, and the fiduciary use of firearms justify the denial of bail to ensure command efficiency and prevent the spread of unmilitary conduct.
Pay and Allowances During Detention:
- Under Section 18 of R.A. No. 138, as amended, an enlisted man awaiting trial by court-martial is not entitled to base pay or other pay unless placed on full duty status. Petitioner, being detained and not performing regular duties, is not entitled to base pay but may receive allowances.