Case Digest (G.R. No. 75983)
Facts:
On October 1, 1986, habeas corpus petitions were filed in this Court by some 217 detainees (hereafter Petitioners) held at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa after conviction by military tribunals created under General Order No. 8 during martial rule; most were civilians charged with common crimes, while twenty-six were military personnel. The writ issued July 31, 1987; the Solicitor General initially conceded release of civilian detainees unless other legal causes existed, later urging re‑examination of Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34 and limited retroactivity; many cases had final convictions, others were pending review or had been acquitted or granted amnesty.
Issues:
- Did the courts martial have jurisdiction to try and convict civilians charged with common crimes while civil courts were open?
- Does the decision in Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34 apply retroactively to invalidate prior military convictions of civilians and entitle them to immediate release?
- Do double jeopardy or prescription bar retrial of civilians before the civil courts after military convictions were set aside?
Ruling:
The Court held that, as announced in Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34, military tribunals lacked jurisdiction to try civilians while civil courts were open; accordingly the proceedings against civilian petitioners were null and void. The petition was GRANTED insofar as Virgilio Alejandrino, Domingo Reyes, Antonio Pumar, Teodoro Patono, Andres Parado, Daniel Campus, Reynaldo C. Reyes, and Rosalino de los Santos are concerned and the Director of Prisons was ordered to release them unless other legal causes warranted detention. The petitions of the twenty‑six petitioners who were military personnel were DISMISSED. The Department of Justice was DIRECTED to file informations against the remaining civilian petitioners in the proper civil courts within 180 days; any detention already served was to be credited and the courts were directed to proceed with dispatch, including bail proceedings.
Ratio:
The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction over the person is decisive: military commissions may validly try military personnel but not civilians when civil courts are functioning, rendering military convictions of civilians void ab initio. The voidness of the military proceedings meant that legal jeopardy did not attach, so double jeopardy protection did not preclude retrial in civil courts; likewise, the filing of initial charges interrupted prescription and prosecutions in civil courts are to be treated as continuations, with detention credited against any future sentence.
Doctrine:
- Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34: Military tribunals cannot try civilians for offenses while civil courts are open; judgments by such tribunals in respect of civilians are null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
- Courts martial have jurisdiction to try military personnel and convictions of servicemen by such tribunals are valid.
- The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (Art. III, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution) does not bar retrial where the first proceeding was void for lack of jurisdiction and legal jeopardy never attached.
- The filing of the first charges interrupts the running of prescription, and prosecutions in civil courts following annulment of military proceedings are continuations of the original prosecution.
- When military convictions of civilians are annulled, the State may reinstitute prosecution in the proper civil courts, which must proceed with dispatch and afford the accused the usual defenses and bail.