Title
Comendador vs. De Villa
Case
G.R. No. 93177
Decision Date
Aug 2, 1991
AFP officers challenged court-martial legality, bail rights, and pre-trial procedures post-1989 coup; SC upheld military jurisdiction but revived peremptory challenges, denying bail for court-martial cases.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 93177)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

The consolidated petitions arise from actions taken following the December 1–9, 1989 coup attempt. Office Order No. 16 (Jan. 14, 1990) created the PTI Panel; subpoenas and charge sheets were issued by late January 1990. Multiple petitions (G.R. Nos. 93177, 95020, 96948, 97454) were consolidated because they involved substantially the same parties and related issues. Trial and interlocutory rulings by GCM No. 14 and orders of the RTCs (including provisional releases and habeas corpus decisions) were reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework

The Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution in its analysis. Relevant military law provisions relied on in the record include Articles of War (particularly Art. 8 on general courts-martial, Art. 18 on challenges, and Art. 71 on pre-trial investigations), Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War), Presidential Decrees (P.D. No. 39 and P.D. No. 1498), Proclamation No. 2045 (termination of martial law), and procedural doctrines on certiorari/habeas corpus jurisdiction. The Court also referenced Article III, Section 13 (right to bail) and Article VIII, Section 5 (RTC jurisdiction) of the 1987 Constitution as they relate to the issues raised.

Issues Presented

The consolidated matters raised several principal issues: (1) whether the PTI Panel conducted the pre-trial investigation required by Art. 71 and whether the absence or inadequacy of that investigation deprived the GCM of jurisdiction; (2) whether GCM No. 14 was properly constituted pursuant to Art. 8; (3) whether accused officers retained the right to peremptory challenges under Art. 18 of Com. Act No. 408 given P.D. No. 39 and the termination of martial law; (4) whether civil courts (RTC) had jurisdiction to entertain petitions in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, habeas corpus and to order provisional releases of accused military officers; and (5) whether the private respondents were entitled to release because of delay or denial of bail.

Pre-Trial Investigation (Art. 71): Facts and Court’s Assessment

The PTI Panel issued subpoenas directing accused officers to submit counter-affidavits and warned that failure to do so would be deemed a waiver of the right to submit controverting evidence. The accused filed motions (including a Motion for Summary Dismissal and later a motion for reconsideration) instead of timely submitting counter-affidavits; the PTI Panel denied dismissal and, after the accused failed to comply within the extensions given, recommended referral of the charges to the General Court-Martial. The Supreme Court found that the accused were afforded opportunities to present their side and that their failure to submit counter-affidavits—despite explicit warnings—precluded a claim that they were denied due process at the PTI stage.

Jurisdictional Effect of Failure to Conduct or Adequacy of PTI

Relying on precedent cited in the record (notably Arula v. Espino and related authority), the Court reiterated that pre-trial investigation requirements under Art. 71 are directory rather than jurisdictional. Accordingly, even irregularity or failure in pre-trial procedures does not, by itself, divest a general court-martial of jurisdiction; such defects bear on regularity and may support remedies only if there is substantial injury to the accused. The Court therefore concluded that GCM No. 14 retained jurisdiction notwithstanding the procedural disputes over the PTI.

Constitutionality and Validity of Convening GCM No. 14 (Art. 8)

Petitioners contended that General Order No. M-6 convening GCM No. 14 was not valid because it lacked the Chief of Staff’s signature. The Court observed that the order explicitly stated it was issued “By Command of General De Villa,” that the Summary Disposition Form showed actual constitution by Gen. De Villa, and that he had not disavowed or revoked the order. The Solicitor General’s position and the absence of any indication of spuriousness led the Court to uphold the validity of the convening order and the constitution of GCM No. 14.

Right to Peremptory Challenge: Art. 18, P.D. No. 39, and Effect of Proclamation No. 2045

Art. 18 of Com. Act No. 408 originally provided a right to one peremptory challenge to each side. P.D. No. 39 (issued during martial law) eliminated peremptory challenges, allowing only challenges for cause. The Court examined the historical context: P.D. No. 39 was promulgated as part of the martial law-era reorganization of military tribunals. With President Marcos’s issuance of Proclamation No. 2045 terminating martial law (Jan. 17, 1981), the Court applied the statutory construction principle cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex (when the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases). The Court held that the withdrawal of the peremptory challenge under P.D. No. 39 became ineffective with the dismantling of martial law’s apparatus; consequently, the right to peremptory challenge under Art. 18 of Com. Act No. 408 was revived and must be recognized. The Court ordered that petitioners be allowed to exercise peremptory challenges accordingly.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Over Military Proceedings and Extraordinary Writs

Petitioners argued that RTCs lacked authority to interfere with court-martial proceedings and to order releases. The Court reaffirmed that civil courts generally do not supervise routine court-martial errors and that certiorari lies only on jurisdictional grounds or grave abuse of discretion. Nonetheless, the Court recognized that civil courts, including RTCs, possess concurrent jurisdiction to hear petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus, and may intervene where the military body acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse. The absence of a statute confining such review exclusively to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court meant the RTCs could act within their constitutional powers.

Right to Bail: Majority Analysis and Reversal of RTC Release Orders

The RTC had granted provisional liberty and ordered GCM No. 14 to entertain bail applications, reasoning that Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution (right to bail for “all persons” with narrow exception) applied to military personnel. The Solicitor General and military respondents argued traditionally that the military has not recognized bail as an exception owed to the exigencies of discipline and national security, particularly in mutiny cases. The Supreme Court majority concluded that, as a matter of law and circumstance in these consolidated cases, the RTC orders granting provisional release and directing the GCM to conduct bail proceedings were erroneous. The Court held that the private respondents should not have been ordered released and therefore reversed and set aside the RTC orders granting provisional liberty and habeas corpus-based release. The majority emphasized national security considerations and the special nature of military discipline in upholding the reversal.

Habeas Corpus Delay Claim and Court’s Observations on Promptness

With respect to the petition alleging detention without formal charges for more than a year, the Court found that, although there was a delay in investigation and in preparing charges (explained by the complexity and scale of the coup cases), the government had shown substantial compliance with due process and the right to a speedy trial in the circumstances. The Court nevertheless admonished military authorities that indefinite confinement is not sanctioned; Art. 71 requires prompt steps to try or dismiss charges, and those responsible for unnecessary delay may be subject to punishment.

Final Dispositions of the Consolidated Petitions

  • G.R. No. 93177 (challenge to PTI and creation of GCM No. 14): petition dismissed f
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms