Case Digest (G.R. No. 85481-82)
Facts:
William Tan, Joaquin Tan Leh and Vicente Tan v. Hernani T. Barrios, G.R. Nos. 85481-82, October 18, 1990, Supreme Court En Banc, Grino-Aquino, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are three of fifteen persons originally charged before Military Commission No. 1 in Criminal Case No. MC-1-67 for murder and illegal possession of firearms arising from the August 25, 1973 killing of Florentino Lim; they were tried by court-martial after their arrest on April 17, 1975, arraigned May 6, 1975, and—after more than thirteen months of trial that produced voluminous transcripts—were among eight accused acquitted by the military commission on June 10–11, 1976. The defendants were detained at the P.C. Stockade, Camp Crame; some co-accused were convicted, others acquitted, and several later died.
Following the end of martial rule and abolition of military tribunals (Proclamation No. 2045, April 17, 1981), this Court in Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 (150 SCRA 144) declared that military tribunals lacked jurisdiction over civilians for ordinary crimes while civil courts were open, and in Cruz v. Enrile (160 SCRA 700) applied that doctrine to multiple habeas corpus petitions, nullifying military-commission convictions of certain civilian petitioners and directing the Department of Justice to file informations in proper civil courts for those still serving sentences.
Acting under Department Order No. 226 (Sept. 15, 1988), Respondent State Prosecutor Hernani T. Barrios, later Acting City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro City, filed informations on December 9, 1988 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cagayan de Oro, docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. 88-824 (illegal possession of firearm) and 88-825 (murder), naming the original fifteen military-commission defendants—including the three petitioners—despite their prior acquittal by Military Commission No. 1. The RTC assigned the cases to Judge Leonardo N. Demecillo, who by order of October 26, 1988 required the prosecutor to submit certified copies of the military records and the Supreme Court order relied upon; the State Prosecutor failed to comply.
On November 7, 1988 the petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the informations and Judge Demecillo’s order and permanent prevention of any reprosecution, on grounds that (inter alia) Cruz v. Enrile did not authorize reprosecution of persons acquitted by military tribunals, reprosecution would violate double jeopardy and effect an ex post facto impairment, and the informations lacked prior preliminary investigation and proper approvals. The First Division dismissed the petition as premature (Nov. 23, 1988) for failure to file a motion to quash...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Rule 65 petition premature because the petitioners had not first filed a motion to quash the informations in the RTC (i.e., did they have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law)?
- Did Respondent State Prosecutor and the RTC gravely abuse their discretion or act without or in excess of jurisdiction in refiling criminal informations against petitioners who had been acquitted by Military Commission No. 1, purportedly under authority of Cruz v. Enrile?
- Would reprosecution of the petitioners in civil courts violate the constitutional protections against double jeopardy and against ex post facto laws?
- Is the information in Crim. Case No. 88-825 invalid for having been filed without prior preliminary investigation, a finding of probable cause, and the writt...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)