G.R. No. 75983 - Cruz vs. Enrile

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75983)

Factual Background

The petitions challenged the continued detention of approximately two hundred seventeen persons arrested during the period of martial rule and confined at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa. Of these detainees, one hundred fifty-seven were civilians and twenty-six were confirmed military personnel; the records did not indicate the status of thirty-four others. The detainees had been tried before various courts martial created under General Order No. 8 and were charged generally with common crimes such as robbery, murder, arson, kidnapping, and illegal possession of firearms, except for one military conviction for assaulting and wilfully disobeying a superior officer. Sentences imposed included one hundred fifteen death sentences, forty-six terms of reclusion perpetua, nine terms of twenty to thirty years, forty-one terms of ten to twenty years, and three terms of less than ten years. The procedural posture of the cases at the time of filing was disparate: sixty-eight sentences had become final upon approval by the Office of the President; seventy-five cases were pending review before that Office or the Board of Military Review; the remaining seventy-three either had appeals expressly suspended pending these petitions or their status was not clear from the record. A few detainees had been granted clemency or had been acquitted yet remained in custody.

Procedural History

The original habeas corpus petitions were docketed as G.R. No. 75983 and consolidated with subsequent petitions by Court resolutions issued between August and November 1987, including G.R. Nos. 79077, 79862, 79599-79600, and 80565. After leave to amend was granted, an amended petition reiterated the constitutional attacks and invoked the Court’s recent holding in Olaguer vs. Military Commission. The Solicitor General filed a return which initially indicated no objection to the release of civilian petitioners unless other lawful causes for detention existed, while opposing release of military personnel; that return was then amended to request reconsideration of Olaguer and to urge, alternatively, limited retroactive application of that doctrine.

Issues Presented

The consolidated petitions presented primarily whether the establishment and exercise of jurisdiction by military tribunals under General Order No. 8 to try civilians for common crimes was constitutional, and whether the proceedings and convictions obtained before such military commissions were null and void. Subsidiary issues included whether relief under Olaguer vs. Military Commission should be applied to all civilians tried by courts martial regardless of the nature of the offenses; whether limited or prospective application of Olaguer was warranted; whether retrial in civil courts would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy; and whether prescription or other defenses would bar prosecution in the civil courts.

Contentions of the Petitioners

The petitioners urged that all military tribunals created under General Order No. 8 were unconstitutional insofar as they had exercised jurisdiction over civilians, and that all proceedings and judgments rendered by those tribunals against civilians were null and void. They asserted entitlement to retrial in the ordinary civil courts in order to secure due process protections lacking in military proceedings and sought unconditional release where appropriate.

Contentions of the Respondents

The public respondents, through the Solicitor General, initially offered no objection to the immediate release of civilian petitioners unless other legal causes warranted continued detention, but later amended that position to urge the Court to re-examine Olaguer. The amended return proposed that the Olaguer doctrine be limited in scope or given only prospective effect, citing consequences of retroactive invalidation such as the running of prescription or the practical unavailability of witnesses, the impairment of memories, and prejudice to rights that might follow annulment of prior acquittals or judicial determinations.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed its holding in Olaguer vs. Military Commission that a military commission cannot try civilians for offenses allegedly committed by them while the civil courts are open and functioning, and that judgments rendered by such commissions in respect of civilians are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court rejected any limitation of that doctrine to political offenses and held that the question is one of personal jurisdiction over civilians, not merely of the character of the crimes charged; therefore the rule applies to all civilians tried before courts martial. The Court declined to give Olaguer merely prospective effect and refused to distinguish between cases finally decided and those pending review, finding no cogent reason to deviate from the unequivocal pronouncement that proceedings before courts martial involving civilians are void. The Court observed, however, that the existence of alleged criminal acts does not evaporate upon the invalidity of the military proceedings; the victims retain the State’s interest in prosecution. Accordingly, the Court directed that the causes involving civilians be transferred to the competent civil courts for the filing of informations and retrial. As to the twenty-six petitioners who were military personnel, the Court held that courts martial validly exercised jurisdiction and that the writ was unavailing to them. On the double jeopardy question the Court concluded that retrial in civil courts would not breach the constitutional prohibition against twice putting an accused in jeopardy because the military tribunals lacked jurisdiction and thus legal jeopardy never attached; the Court recited the requisites for double jeopardy as requiring a prior valid jeopardy. On prescription the Court found the defense generally unavailable where the offenses were punishable by death or reclusion perpetua, noting that Article 92 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes twenty years for such offenses, and held that the initial filing of charges served to suspend or interrupt prescription so that prosecutions in the civil courts should be regarded as continuations of prior proceedings.

Disposition and Orders

The Court granted the petitions insofar as they concerned certain named detainees by ordering the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to effect their immediate release unless other legal causes for detention existed; those released included Virgilio Alejandrino (granted Presidential amnesty), Domingo Reyes, Antonio Pumar, Teodoro Patano, Andres Parado, Daniel Campus (acquitted by the military tribunal), and Reynaldo C. Reyes and Rosalino de los Santos (who appeared to have served their sentences). The Court dismissed the petitions insofar as they concerned the listed

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 75983)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners consisted of some two hundred seventeen persons detained at New Bilibid Prisons and represented collectively in multiple consolidated petitions before this Court.
Respondents included Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, General Fidel Ramos, General (Ret.) Emilio N. Cea, Minister Neptali Gonzales, and Brig. General Samuel Soriano as public respondents in the consolidated habeas corpus proceedings.
The consolidated habeas corpus petitions were commenced in this Court on October 1, 1986, and were docketed under various G.R. numbers which were consolidated by the Court’s resolutions.
The writ of habeas corpus was issued on July 31, 1987, after leave to file an amended petition was granted on July 14, 1987.
The Solicitor General filed an initial return consenting to the release of civilian petitioners unless other legal causes warranted detention and later filed an amended return urging re-examination and limited retroactivity of Olaguer v. Military Commission (150 SCRA 144).
A separate opinion was filed by Justice Gutierrez, Jr., which is noted but did not alter the Court’s majority disposition.

Key Factual Allegations

The petitioners were arrested during a nine-year period of official martial rule and were tried before various military commissions created under General Order No. 8.
Of the 217 detainees, 157 were civilians and 26 were confirmed military personnel with the records silent as to the status of 34 others.
Sentences imposed by the military commissions included death for 115 petitioners, life imprisonment for 46 petitioners, twenty-to-thirty year terms for nine petitioners, ten-to-twenty year terms for forty-one petitioners, and less than ten years for three petitioners.
At the time of filing, the sentences of sixty-eight petitioners had become final upon approval by the Office of the President, seventy-five cases were pending review before that Office or before the Board of Military Review, and seventy-three cases were either suspended or not addressed in the records.
Virgilio Alejandrino had been granted Presidential amnesty yet remained in detention at the Penitentiary, and several petitioners who were acquitted or who appear to have fully served their sentences remained confined.

Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

The Court applied the constitutional provision against double jeopardy as cited, Sec. 21, Art. III, 1987 Constitution, in assessing the effect of prior military proceedings.
The Court relied on the rule that military commissions created under General Order No. 8 were competent to try military personnel but lacked jurisdiction over civilians when civil courts were open, as articulated in Olaguer v. Military Commission, 150 SCRA 144, and in People v. Navarro, 63 SCRA 264.
The Court discussed the prescriptive periods of offenses under Article 92, Revised Penal Code, particularly as to offenses punishable by death or reclusion perpetua which prescribe in twenty years.
The Court invoked prior rulings on the requisites for the attachment of legal jeopardy and the applicability of the defense of double jeopardy, referencing People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166, and People v. Brecinio, 125 SCRA 182.
The Court analogized to Hickey v. State, 174 SW 269, and People v. Olarte, 19 SCRA 494, in treating the interruption or suspension of the prescriptive period by the filing of initial charges.

Issues Presented

Whether the creation and exercise of jurisdiction by military commissions under General Order No. 8 over the civi