G.R. No. 170924 - Pulido vs. Abu

On July 27, 2003, at about 1:00 AM, 321 junior officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) occupied the Oakwood Premiere Luxury Apartments in Makati City.
They disarmed security guards and planted explosives around the premises, publicly airing grievances against the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and demanded the resignation of top officials.
President Arroyo declared a state of rebellion via Proclamation No. 427 and issued General Order No. 4 to suppress the mutiny.
After negotiations, the mutineers agreed to return to their barracks, ending the occupation.

Enlisted personnel Cezari Gonzales and Julius Mesa were among the occupiers.
On August 2, 2003, AFP Chief of Staff Narciso L. Abaya directed that Gonzales and Mesa be taken into custody.
They were not charged before a court martial but faced charges of Coup D’etat before Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Criminal Case No. 03-2784).
A commitment order was issued on November 18, 2003, committing their custody to the Commanding Officer of Fort San Felipe Naval Base, Cavite City.
Gonzales and Mesa were discharged from military service on December 8, 2003.

On December 16, 2003, their case was consolidated with another pending case due to similarity of facts and character.
On March 3, 2004, the Naval Base commander requested to be relieved as custodian and transfer Gonzales and Mesa to Makati City Jail.
In April 2004, the RTC ordered the transfer of custody to the Philippine Marine Brigade Headquarters in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig.

In July 2004, the RTC admitted Gonzales, Mesa, and 25 co-accused to bail, set at P100,000.00 each.
Gonzales and Mesa posted bail on July 19, 2004.
Despite RTC orders directing their release, Gonzales and Mesa were not released.
The People's prosecution moved for partial reconsideration of the bail order.
The Chief State Prosecutor advised the Judge Advocate General to defer action on their provisional release pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

On October 26, 2004, the RTC denied the motion for partial reconsideration.
The People filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to nullify the bail orders, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88440.
The CA Seventh Division did not issue a TRO or preliminary injunction, but Gonzales and Mesa remained detained.
On July 22, 2005, a Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed on behalf of Gonzales and Mesa, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90546 before the CA Third Division.
The Petition argued that since Gonzales and Mesa were discharged from service and not charged before a court martial, military detention was unlawful, supported by the RTC release orders.

On August 10, 2005, the CA Third Division issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents to produce Gonzales and Mesa.
On August 18, 2005, the respondents filed their Return, arguing:

Continued detention justified due to pending Petition for Certiorari before the CA Seventh Division.
The petitioner committed forum shopping by failing to disclose the pendency of the certiorari case.

On September 9, 2005, the CA Seventh Division dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.
On September 12, 2005, the CA Third Division dismissed the Petition for Habeas Corpus for violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court regarding forum shopping.
The petitioner was censured for his failure to disclose the pending certiorari case and for making false certifications.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on January 6, 2006.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw the Prayer for Immediate Release after Gonzales and Mesa were released by order of the Philippine Marines and surrendered to the RTC.
The Solicitor General argued the petition was moot and academic due to release of Gonzales and Mesa.
The Supreme Court abstained from addressing the legality of the detention after their release and limited the issues to petitioner’s alleged forum shopping and imposition of penalty.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Habeas Corpus on the ground of forum shopping.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in limiting its consideration to the issue of forum shopping without addressing the merits regarding the legality of detention.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in imposing the penalty of censure on petitioner.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling on the existence or absence of valid grounds to detain Julius Mesa and Cezari Gonzales.