Case Digest (G.R. No. L-58284)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, G.R. No. 58284, November 19, 1981, the Supreme Court En Banc, Aquino, J., writing for the Court, resolved petitions by Bernabe Buscayno, Jose Ma. Sison and Juliet Sison (petitioners) against Military Commissions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 25, General Fabian Ver, General Fidel Ramos, Lt. Col. Virgilio Saldajeno, Capt. Melchor A. Acosta and the Review Board of the AFP (respondents).The petitioners were long-accused alleged members or leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wings and had been placed on various military “target lists,” with bounties fixed for their capture. Buscayno was charged with subversion and murder before Military Commission No. 2 (Criminal Case No. MC-2-23 and MC-2-22) and with rebellion before Military Commission No. 1 (later Special Military Commission No. 1, Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1). He was arrested on August 26, 1976, waived presence and counsel at arraignment, the prosecution presented evidence, and after multiple procedural turns the Commission found him guilty in 1977 and sentenced him to death; the Commission later reopened the trial and ultimately, on May 4, 1981, reaffirmed its 1977 conviction and sentence. Buscayno had earlier filed a petition in this Court (L-47185) that was dismissed in the Court’s January 15, 1981 decision.
The Sison spouses were charged in various military commissions with subversion (including Military Commission No. 25 and No. 6) and with rebellion in the amended charge sheet of November 8, 1977 (Case No. SMC-1-1). They, with others including the Buscaynos, had previously sought relief in this Court (L-49579), which was also dismissed on January 15, 1981.
On October 2, 1981 Buscayno and the Sison spouses filed the instant omnibus petition for habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus seeking, among other relief: (a) dismissal or nullification of the military commissions’ convictions and proceedings on grounds including denial of the right to present evidence and double jeopardy; (b) transfer of cases to civilian courts; (c) release from detention and bail; and (d) a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the military commissions from proceeding. Proclamation No. 2045 (January 17, 1981), which announced termination of martial law but preserved the call to the AFP to ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners illegally detained such that habeas corpus relief and release (including bail) should be granted?
- May the Supreme Court, by habeas corpus or otherwise, review the rulings and proceedings of the military commissions that tried these civilians?
- Did Presidential Decree No. 885 repeal or extinguish criminal liability under Republic Act No. 1700 so as to bar subversion prosecutions arising before P.D. 885’s effectivity?
- Does the plea of double jeopardy bar the subsequent prosecution of the petitioners for subversion or rebellion arising from overlapping alleged acts?
- Was Buscayno’s alleged denial of the constitutional right to present evidence in Military ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)