Title
Salas vs. Bunyi-Medina
Case
G.R. No. 251693
Decision Date
Sep 28, 2020
Rodolfo Salas, convicted for rebellion in 1992, faced murder charges in 2006. His son filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming double jeopardy. The Supreme Court dismissed it, ruling habeas corpus improper for lawful detention and double jeopardy premature for trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 251693)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: Jody C. Salas, filing habeas corpus on behalf of Rodolfo.
Respondents: RTC Judge Bunyi-Medina; JCInsp. Gonzaga; other jail officials.

Key Dates

• October 24, 1986 – Amended Information charging Rodolfo with rebellion.
• May 10, 1991 – RTC conviction of Rodolfo for rebellion under EO 187.
• 1992 – Completion of Rodolfo’s sentence and release.
• February 20, 2007 – Filing of Information for 15 counts of murder (May–June 1985 events).
• August 28, 2019 – RTC Manila warrant of arrest issued.
• February 18–20, 2020 – Rodolfo’s arrest in Pampanga and commitment to Manila City Jail Annex.
• March 2, 2020 – Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed and writ issued.
• March 12, 2020 – Oral arguments; bail granted; temporary restraining order denied.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1 (due process), Sec. 14 (double jeopardy), Sec. 15 (habeas corpus).
• Rule 102, Rules of Court – writ of habeas corpus procedure and limitations.
• Revised Penal Code Arts. 134–135, as amended by P.D. No. 1834 and EO 187 (rebellion).
• Rule 117, Sec. 3, Rules of Court – motion to quash information.

Factual Background

  1. 1986–1991 Rebellion Case: Rodolfo pleaded guilty under plea‐bargaining and was sentenced to six years and one day to prison mayor. He served this term and was released in 1992.
  2. Leyte Mass Grave Discovery: On August 26, 2006, 67 skeletal remains were unearthed in Inopacan, Leyte, 15 of which were identified as victims of CPP-NPA “Operation Venereal Disease” (1982–1992).
  3. Murder Indictment: February 20, 2007, Rodolfo and 37 others were charged in Manila RTC with 15 counts of murder for the May–June 1985 killings in Leyte.
  4. Judicial Process: Venue transferred to RTC Manila, Branch 32. Warrant of Arrest issued on August 28, 2019; Rodolfo arrested February 18, 2020; committed to Manila City Jail Annex February 20, 2020.
  5. Habeas Corpus Petition: Filed March 2, 2020; writ issued; bail granted at ₱200,000.

Issues

  1. Whether habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to challenge Rodolfo’s detention under judicial process.
  2. Whether double jeopardy bars prosecution for murder, as those acts were allegedly absorbed in the prior rebellion conviction.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Rodolfo was never notified of the preliminary investigation into the murder charges.
• The 1991 plea-bargaining agreement guaranteed protection under the Hernandez–Enrile political‐offense doctrine, shielding him from common‐crime prosecution for acts committed in furtherance of rebellion.
• Having fully served his sentence for rebellion, prosecution for murder violates his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
• No plain, speedy remedy exists other than habeas corpus to secure his prompt release.

Respondents’ Arguments

• Rodolfo’s arrest and detention were pursuant to valid judicial process (information, warrant, commitment order) which enjoys the presumption of regularity.
• The writ of habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for ordinary remedies (e.g., motion to quash, reinvestigation) before the RTC.
• The political‐offense doctrine is a trial defense requiring factual proof that killings were committed to achieve a political objective; it cannot be resolved in habeas corpus proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

• Nature and Scope of Habeas Corpus: Under Rule 102 and the 1987 Constitution, the writ inquires only into the legality of present restraint. It cannot review errors of law or process irregularities where custody is by lawful judicial process.
• Judicial Process Exception: Having been charged by information and arrested under a warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction, Rodolfo’s detention is lawful; habeas corpus relief is therefore unavailable.
• Mootness by Bail: The Court previously granted Rodolf

...continue reading

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