Title
Laude vs. Ginez-Jabalde
Case
G.R. No. 217456
Decision Date
Nov 24, 2015
US Marine Pemberton accused of killing Jeffrey Laude; custody dispute under Visiting Forces Agreement; SC upheld procedural rules, denied transfer to PH authorities.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 217456)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Context
    • Petitioners: Marilou S. Laude and Mesehilda S. Laude, private complainants.
    • Respondents: Judge Roline M. Ginez-Jabalde (Branch 74, RTC Olongapo City), public prosecutors, Executive Secretary, DFA Secretary, AFP Chief of Staff, and L/Cpl. Joseph Scott Pemberton (accused US Marine).
  • Criminal Proceedings History
    • October 11, 2014: Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude killed at Celzone Lodge, Olongapo City; accused Pemberton allegedly responsible.
    • October 15, 2014: Complaint for murder filed by Marilou Laude with Olongapo City Prosecutor.
    • October 22, 2014: Pemberton detained at Camp Aguinaldo under VFA obligations.
    • December 15–19, 2014: Information for murder filed with RTC; warrant issued December 16; Pemberton surrendered and arraigned December 19.
  • Motions and Lower Court Orders
    • December 19, 2014: Petitioners filed Urgent Motion to Compel AFP to surrender custody to Olongapo City Jail and Motion to Allow Media Coverage, set for hearing December 22.
    • December 22, 2014: Petitioners served Pemberton’s counsel by registered mail and “personally at hearing”; hearing attended but counsel received motion only minutes before.
    • December 23, 2014: Judge Ginez-Jabalde denied Urgent Motion for “utter lack of merit.”
    • January 9, 2015: Motion for Reconsideration filed; denied February 18, 2015.
  • Supreme Court Proceedings
    • April 21, 2015: SC required comments.
    • June–September 2015: Comments filed by Pemberton (June 16) and public respondents (Sept. 23).
    • Petitioners invoked alleged grave abuse of discretion, three-day notice rule exceptions, VFA primary jurisdiction, international human rights, and Secretary of Justice statements.

Issues:

  • Procedural Compliance
    • Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the Urgent Motion for failure to comply with the three-day notice rule (Rules of Court, Rule 15, Sec. 4).
    • Whether lack of conformity of the Public Prosecutor (Rule 110, Sec. 5) rendered the motion defective.
  • Substantive and Jurisdictional Claims
    • Whether petitioners’ right of access to justice under the ICCPR and other human rights instruments excuses procedural noncompliance.
    • Whether the Visiting Forces Agreement’s custody provisions were misapplied or unconstitutional insofar as they affect the Court’s rule-making power.
    • Whether petitioners, as private offended parties, have standing to seek a writ of mandatory injunction to transfer custody.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

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