Case Digest (G.R. No. 115576)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Leonardo Paquinto and Jesus Cabangunay, G.R. No. 115576, August 04, 1994, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cruz, J., writing for the Court, decided whether two civilians convicted by military commissions during martial law should remain detained. Petitioners were the Commission on Human Rights (through Chairman Sedfrey A. Ordonez and Commissioners) and respondents included the Director of Prisons; the Office of the Solicitor General appeared for the respondent.Leonardo Paquinto and Jesus Cabangunay had been tried by military commissions, originally sentenced to death (later commuted to reclusion perpetua under the new Constitution), and their convictions were subsequently nullified by this Court in Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 (150 SCRA 144) on the ground that military tribunals lacked jurisdiction over civilians while the regular courts were functioning. In Cruz v. Ponce Enrile (160 SCRA 700) the Court directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file corresponding criminal informations in the civil courts within 180 days.
No informations were filed against Paquinto and Cabangunay and both remained in detention. On May 27, 1992 the three (including Ernesto Abaloc) communicated with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC); on October 14, 1993 the UNHRC declared their communication admissible and requested the Philippine Government’s explanation. The DOJ later informed the Commission on Human Rights that Abaloc had been released (September 29, 1992) but Paquinto and Cabangunay remained at the National Penitentiary and intimated it would not object to a habeas corpus petition by the Commission.
The Commission filed the present petition for habeas corpus on June 13, 1994; the writ issued and was made returnable June 22, 1994. At the hearing Chairman Ordonez urged immediate release for the detainees due to the DOJ’s failure to comply with the Cruz directive. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that under Tan v. Barrios (190 SCRA 686) Olaguer could not be given retroactive effect to persons already serving sentences and suggested executive clemency as the prisoners’ recourse. The government also relied on a letter purportedly showing Paquinto had opted to complete his sentence, but both detainees disowned the attorney who signed that letter and denied having given such an authorization.
The Court noted its February 26, 1991 en banc resolution (relying on Tan) which had afforded civilians convicted by military tribunals the option to either complete service of their sentence or be retried in civil cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Commission on Human Rights maintain a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Leonardo Paquinto and Jesus Cabangunay?
- Are Paquinto and Cabangunay entitled to immediate release where their military convictions were nullified (per Olaguer), the DOJ was directed to file civil informations (per Cruz) but failed to do so, in light of the Court’s rulings in Tan v. Barrios...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)