Case Summary (G.R. No. 223272)
Key Dates
- June 26, 2006: Alleged abduction of EmpeAo and Cadapan
- December 19–20, 2011: Issuance of arrest warrants and petitioner’s arrest
- July 21, 2015: Habeas corpus petition filed in the Court of Appeals
- July 27, 2015 & February 22, 2016: Court of Appeals resolutions denying habeas corpus
- April 20, 2016: Petition for Review filed with the Supreme Court
- February 26, 2018: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 1 (due process)
- Revised Penal Code Article 267 (kidnapping and serious illegal detention)
- Republic Act No. 7055, Section 1 (jurisdiction over military personnel accused of crimes under the RPC)
- Rules of Court: Rule 102 (habeas corpus); Rule 117 (motion to quash)
- Articles of War (service-connected offenses)
Factual Background
Staff Sergeant Osorio was charged with conspiring to kidnap UP students EmpeAo and Cadapan on June 26, 2006, and detaining them across various military and civilian locations for over a year. Arrest warrants issued by RTC Branch 14, Malolos City led to his detention in military and provincial facilities. Osorio petitioned for habeas corpus, contending that only courts-martial could try an active-duty soldier and that Article 267 applies solely to “private individuals.”
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Held that the RTC had valid jurisdiction and issued lawful warrants.
- Cited RA 7055: military personnel accused of non-service-connected crimes under the RPC are to be tried by civil courts.
- Determined kidnapping is not service-connected under the Articles of War.
- Ruled habeas corpus inappropriate for challenging jurisdictional or procedural defects; remedy lies in a motion to quash.
Issues Presented
- Is habeas corpus the proper remedy for an active-duty soldier detained under a civil court warrant?
- May a civil court take cognizance of non-service-connected crimes committed by a soldier?
- Can a public officer be charged under Article 267’s reference to “private individual”?
Supreme Court Analysis
- Habeas corpus is an extraordinary, summary remedy to test the legality of restraint, but it is unavailable where detention is by a valid court order from a tribunal with jurisdiction (Rules of Court, Rule 102, § 4).
- Procedural or jurisdictional challenges should be raised by motion to quash before arraignment (Rule 117).
- Under RA 7055, Section 1, civil courts try military personnel for crimes under the RPC unless the offense is service-connected (as enumerated in Articles of War).
- Kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 are not service-connected.
- A public officer detaining without legal authority acts in a private capacity and is properly charged under Article 267.
- Precedent (People v. Santiano; People v. PO1 Trestiza) confirms that officers may be convicted of kidnapping when acting beyond official duties.
Holding
The petition for review on certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court affirms the
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223272)
Factual Background
- In June 2006, University of the Philippines students Karen E. Empeão and Sherlyn T. Cadapan were allegedly abducted at night from Raquel Halili’s house in Barangay San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan, using a motor vehicle.
- The victims were detained against their will in multiple locations—Camp Tecson (San Miguel, Bulacan), the barangay hall of Sapang (San Miguel, Bulacan), the 24th Infantry Battalion camp (Limay, Bataan), and a resort/safehouse in Iba, Zambales—for over one year (June 2006–July 2007), resulting in their continuing disappearance.
- Two Informations (Crim. Cases No. 3905-M-2011 and 3906-M-2011) were filed before Branch 14, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City, charging SSgt. Osorio and co-accused with kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267, Revised Penal Code.
- Arrest warrants issued against SSgt. Osorio on December 19, 2011. On December 20, 2011, he was arrested by the AFP Provost Marshall General, turned over to CIDU, and detained first in Bulacan Provincial Jail, later transferred to the Philippine Army Custodial Center, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.
Procedural History
- July 21, 2015: SSgt. Osorio filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the Court of Appeals (CA), impleading the RTC judge, prosecuting attorneys, and his military superiors as respondents.
- July 27, 2015: CA Resolution denied the habeas petition, finding valid judicial process and jurisdiction.
- February 22, 2016: CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
- April 20, 2016: SSgt. Osorio filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. Respondents, via the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Only courts-martial have jurisdiction over an active-duty soldier accused of a “service-connected” offense; civil courts lack jurisdiction.
- In the alternative, the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan should have handled the case because co-accused Major General Palparan held a salary grade above 28.
- Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code punishes kidnapping and serious illegal detention only when committed by a “private individual,” p