Cases in Crim Law

7/25/2019 Cases in Crim Law

1/125

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 159418-19. December 10, 2003]

NORMA DE JOYA,petitioner, vs. !E JA"# $ARDEN O% &AANGA'("Y AND !ON. R)&EN A. GA#*E+ A' RE'"D"NG J)DGE O%&AANGA' ("Y M)N"("A# R"A# (O)R "N (""E', &RAN(!", respondents.

D E ( " ' " O N

(A##EJO, 'R.,J.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpusled by Norma de Joyapraying for her release from the Batangas City Jail on the laim that herdetention was illegal!

The "nteedents

The petitioner was harged separately with #iolations of Batas $ambansaBlg! %% before the &'niipal Trial Co'rt In Cities in Batangas City! The do(etn'mbers and a'satory portion of eah of the Informations reads)

Criminal Case No! %*+,+

That on or abo't September %,- .//+ at Batangas City- $hilippines- andwithin the 0'risdition of this 1onorable Co'rt- the abo#e2named a'sed-well2(nowing that she does not ha#e f'nds in or redit with the Solid Ban(-Batangas Branh- Batangas City- did then and there- wilf'lly- 'nlawf'lly andfelonio'sly draw- ma(e and iss'e to 3lor Catapang de Tenorio- Solid Ban(Che( No! 4+4%/5 postdated to Otober %,- .//+ in the amo'nt of ONE16ND7ED 3I3T8 T1O6S"ND 9$.*4-444!44: $ESOS- $hilippine C'rreny- toapply on ao'nt or for #al'e- b't when said he( was presented for f'll

payment with the drawee ban( within a period of ninety 9/4: days from thedate of the he(- the same was dishonored by the drawee ban( on thegro'nd ao'nt losed- whih in e;et is e#en more than a dishonor forins'


2/125

do'ments in general and of 3lor Catapang de Tenorio in parti'lar in theaforementioned amo'nt!

CONT7"78 TO =">!?.@

Criminal Case No! %*55A

That on or abo't Otober .5- .//+ at Batangas City- $hilippines- and withinthe 0'risdition of this 1onorable Co'rt- the abo#e2named a'sed- well2(nowing that she does not ha#e f'nd in or redit with the Se'rity Ban( andTr'st Company- Batangas Branh- Batangas City- did then and there- wilf'lly-'nlawf'lly and felonio'sly draw- ma(e and iss'e to 7es'rreion T! Castillo-Se'rity Ban( and Tr'st Company Che( No! 4A,... postdated to Otober%+- .//+ in the amo'nt of T>O 16ND7ED T>ENT823IVE T1O6S"ND $ESOS9$%%*-444!44:- $hilippine C'rreny- to apply on ao'nt or for #al'e- b'twhen said he( was presented for f'll payment with the drawee ban( within

a period of ninety 9/4: days from the date of the he(- the same wasdishonored by the drawee ban( on the gro'nd of ao'nt losed- whih ine;et is e#en more than a dishonor for ins'!?%@

>hen arraigned in both ases- the petitioner- assisted by o'nsel-pleaded not g'ilty! >hile trial was going on- the petitioner 0'mped bail! Noe#idene was thereby add'ed in her defense in any of the two ases!

On Deember .+- .//*- the trial o'rt prom'lgated its deision inCriminal Case No! %*+,+! The petitioner and her o'nsel failed to appeardespite d'e notie! The deretal portion of the deision reads as follows)

>1E7E3O7E- this Co'rt nds the a'sed Norma de Joya g'ilty of the rimeof Violation of Batas $ambansa Blg! %%- and hereby sentenes said a'sedto s';er an imprisonment of one 9.: year and to indemnify the o;endedparty- 3lor Catapang Tenorio- in the s'm of ONE 16ND7ED 3I3T8 T1O6S"ND9$.*4-444!44: $ESOS- $hilippine C'rreny!

SO O7DE7ED!?A@

On &arh %.- .//5- the deision in Criminal Case No! %*55A was li(ewiseprom'lgated in absentia. The deretal portion of the said deision reads)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn1


3/125

>1E7E3O7E- the $rose'tion ha#ing satisfatorily established the g'ilt ofthe a'sed beyond reasonable do'bt- this Co'rt hereby sentenes herein2a'sed Norma de Joya of imprisonment of ONE 9.: 8E"7 and to payomplainant 7es'rreion Castillo of the amo'nt of T>O 16ND7ED T>ENT823IVE T1O6S"ND 9$%%*-444!44: $ESOS by way of damages!

SO O7DE7ED!?+@

The petitioner remained at large and no appeal was led from any of thesaid deisions! In the meantime- the Co'rt iss'ed S'preme Co'rt"dministrati#e Cir'lar No! .%2%444 on No#ember %.- %444 en0oining allo'rts and 0'dges onerned to ta(e notie of the r'ling and poliy of theCo'rt en'niated in Vaca v. Court of Appeals?*@and Lim v. People?@withregard to the imposition of the penalty for #iolations of B!$! Blg! %%!

"fter #e years- the petitioner was nally arrested while she was applyingfor an NBI learane! She was forthwith detained at the Batangas City Jail onDeember A- %44%! On J'ly %,- %44A- the petitioner led an 'rgent motionwith the &'niipal Trial Co'rt of Batangas City as(ing the o'rt to apply SC"dmin! Cir'lar No! .%2%444 retroati#ely p'rs'ant to "rtile %% of the7e#ised $enal Code and to order her release from detention! The p'bliprose'tor opposed the motion! In an Order dated "'g'st .*- %44A- the trialo'rt denied the motion on three gro'nds) 9a: its deision on#iting thepetitioner of #iolation of B!$! Blg! %% had long beome nal and ee'toryhene- o'ld no longer be amended to hange the penalty imposed therein9b: the SC Cir'lar sho'ld be applied prospeti#ely and 9: the SC Cir'lardid not amend B!$! Blg! %%- a s'bstanti#e law- b't merely eno'rages trialo'rt 0'dges to ha#e a 'niform imposition of ne!

1ene- the petition at bar!

The petitioner posits that SC "dmin! Cir'lar No! .%2%444 deleted thepenalty of imprisonment for #iolation of B!$! Blg! %% and allows only theimposition of a ne! The trial o'rt was mandated to apply SC "dmin!Cir'lar No! .%2%444 retroati#ely onformably with "rtile %% of the 7e#ised$enal Code iting the r'ling of this Co'rt in United States v. Pacrose!?5@ Thepetitioner prays that the Co'rt delare her detention illegal and order herrelease from the Batangas City Jail!

The OO 9%: J6D&ENTS O3 CONVICTION ""INST T1E$ETITIONE7 1"D =ON "TT"INED 3IN"=IT8 "ND CO6=D NO=ONE7 BE &ODI3IED!
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov%201998/131714.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov%201998/131714.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/130038.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov%201998/131714.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/130038.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn7


4/125

%: "D&INIST7"TIVE CI7C6="7 NO! .%2%444 "S &ODI3IED B8"D&INIST7"TIVE CI7C6="7 NO! .A2%44. DID NOT DE=ETE T1E$EN"=T8 O3 I&$7ISON&ENT IN B$ %% C"SES!?,@

The OS ited the r'ling of this Co'rt inAbarquez v. Court of Appeals!?/@

The petition has no merit!

Setion +- 7'le .4% of the 7'les of Co'rt- as amended- pro#ides that thewrit of habeas corpusis not allowed if the person alleged to be restrained ofhis liberty is in the 'stody of an o


5/125

belie#es rele#ant to the penalty to be imposed! The Co'rt th's emphasiFedthat)

The lear tenor and intention of "dministrati#e Cir'lar No! .%2%444 is not toremo#e imprisonment as an alternati#e penalty- b't to lay down a r'le of

preferene in the appliation of the penalties pro#ided for in B!$! Blg! %%!

The p'rs'it of this p'rpose learly does not forelose the possibility ofimprisonment for #iolators of B!$! Blg! %%! Neither does it defeat thelegislati#e intent behind the law!

Th's- "dministrati#e Cir'lar No! .%2%444 establishes a r'le of preferene inthe appliation of the penal pro#isions of B!$! Blg! %% s'h that where their'mstanes of both the o;ense and the o;ender learly indiate goodfaith or a lear mista(e of fat witho't taint of negligene- the imposition of ane alone sho'ld be onsidered as the more appropriate penalty! Needless

to say- the determination of whether the ir'mstanes warrant theimposition of a ne alone rests solely 'pon the J'dge! Sho'ld the J'dgedeide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty- "dministrati#eCir'lar No! .%2%444 o'ght not be deemed a hindrane!

It is- therefore- 'nderstood that)

.! "dministrati#e Cir'lar No! .%2%444 does not remo#eimprisonment as an alternati#e penalty for #iolations of B!$!Blg! %%

%! The J'dges onerned may- in the eerise of so'nddisretion- and ta(ing into onsideration the pe'liarir'mstanes of eah ase- determine whether theimposition of a ne alone wo'ld best ser#e the interests of0'stie or whether forbearing to impose imprisonmentwo'ld depreiate the serio'sness of the o;ense- wor(#iolene on the soial order- or otherwise be ontrary tothe imperati#es of 0'stie

A! Sho'ld only a ne be imposed and the a'sed be'nable to pay the ne- there is no legal obstale to the

appliation of the 7e#ised $enal Code pro#isions ons'bsidiary imprisonment!?.%@

B!$! Blg! %% pro#ides for alternati#e penalties of ne or imprisonment orboth ne and imprisonment as follows)

SECTION .! Chec"s without su#cient funds."ny person who ma(es or drawsand iss'es any he( to apply on ao'nt or for #al'e- (nowing at the time
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn12


6/125

of iss'e that he does not ha#e s'


7/125

m'st not only be retrib'ti#e b't m'st also be reformati#e- to gi#e the on#itan opport'nity to li#e a new life and re0oin soiety as a prod'ti#e and i#i2spirited member of the omm'nity! The o'rt has to onsider not only theprimary elements of p'nishment- namely- the moral responsibility of theon#it- the relation of the on#it to the pri#ate omplainant- the intention

of the on#it- the temptation to the at or the e'se for the rime was itdone by a rih man in the insolene of his wealth or by a poor man in theetremity of his needH The o'rt m'st also ta(e into ao'nt the seondaryelements of p'nishment- namely- the reformation of the o;ender- thepre#ention of f'rther o;enses by the o;ender- the repression of o;enses inothers!?.@"s 7o'ssea' said- rimes an be thoro'ghly repressed only by asystem of penalties whih- from the benignity they breathe- ser#e ratherthan to soften than to iname those on whom they are imposed! ?.5@There isalso merit in the #iew that p'nishment inited beyond the merit of theo;ense is so m'h p'nishment of innoene!?.,@

In this ase- e#en if the Co'rt applies SC "dmin! Cir'lar No! .%2%444- asre#ised- retroati#ely- the petition m'st ne#ertheless be dismissed! Thepetitioner did not o;er any e#idene d'ring trial! The 0'dgment of the o'rtbeame nal and ee'tory 'pon her fail're to appeal therefrom! >orse- thepetitioner remained at large for #e long years! >ere it not for her attemptto se're an NBI learane- she wo'ld ha#e been able to el'de the long armof the law!

"N #"G! O% A## !E %OREGO"NG- the petition is DIS&ISSED for la(of merit!

'O ORDERED.

Puno$ %Chairman&$ 'uisumbin$ Austria()artinez$ and*ina$ ++.$ on'r.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 17584 March 8, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANS,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

GREGORIO SANTIAGO,defendant-appellant.

L. Porter Hamilton for appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appellee.

ROMUALE!, J.:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/159418.htm#_ftn18


8/125

Having caused the death of Porfirio Parondo, a bo ! ears old, b stri"ing hi# $ith auto#obile that

he $as driving, the herein appellant $as prosecuted for the cri#e of ho#icide b rec"less

negligence and $as sentenced to suffer one ear and one da ofprision correccional, and to pa the

costs of the trial.

Not agreeable $ith that sentence he no$ co#es to this court alleging that the court belo$ co##itted

four errors, to $it%

&. 'he trial court erred in not ta"ing (udicial notice of the fact that the appellant $as being

prosecuted in confor#it $ith Act No. )**+ of the Philippine egislature and that the Act is

unconstitutional and gave no (urisdiction in this case.

). 'he lo$er court erred in not dis#issing the co#plaint after the presentation of the

evidence in the case, if not before, for the reason that said Act No. )**+ is unconstitutional

and the proceedings had in the case under the provisions of the Act constitute a prosecution

of appellant $ithout due process of la$.

. 'he court a quo erred in not finding that it lac"ed (urisdiction over the person of theaccused and over the sub(ect- #atter of the co#plaint.

. 'he trial court erred in finding the appellant guilt of the cri#e charged and in sentencing

hi# to one ear and one da ofprison correccional and to the pa#ent of costs.

/ith regard to the 0uestions of fact, $e have to sa that $e have e1a#ined the record and find that

the conclusions of the trial (udge, as contained in his $ell-$ritten decision, are sufficientl sustained

b the evidence sub#itted.

'he accused $as driving an auto#obile at the rate of 2 #iles an hour on a high$a + #eter $ide,

not$ithstanding the fact that he had to pass a narro$ space bet$een a $agon standing on one side

of the road and a heap of stones on the other side $here the $ere t$o oung bos, the appellant did

not ta"e the precaution re0uired b the circu#stances b slo$ing his #achine, and did not proceed

$ith the vigilant care that under the circu#stances an ordinar prudent #an $ould ta"e in order to

avoid possible accidents that #ight occur, as unfortunatel did occur, as his auto#obile ran over the

bo Porfirio Parondo $ho $as instantl "illed as the result of the accident.

'hese facts are so $ell established in the records that there cannot be a shade of doubt about the#.

Co#ing no$ to the other assign#ents of error, it $ill be seen that the deal $ith the funda#ental

0uestions as to $hether or not Act No. )**+, under $hich the co#plaint in the present case $as

filed, is valid and constitutional.

'his Act is attac"ed on account of the a#end#ents that it introduces in 3eneral 4rders No. 5*, the

defense arguing that the Philippine egislature $as, and is, not authori6ed to a#end 3eneral 4rders

No. 5*, as it did b a#ending section ) thereof because its provisions have the character of

constitutional la$. 7aid section ) provides as follo$s%

All prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the na#e of the 8nited 7tates against the

persons charged $ith the offenses. 93. 4. No. 5*, sec. ) :.


9/125

Act No. )**+, $hich a#ends it, b virtue of $hich the People of the Philippine ;sland is #ade the

plaintiff in this infor#ation, contains the follo$ing provisions in section &%

7EC';4N &. 7ection t$o of 3eneral 4rders, Nu#bered ., &&*5, &&*+. 7ee Collins vs. >ohnston, )! 8.7., 52) 5

s. Ct. Rep. + 5 . ed., &2!& 7hevlin-Carpenter Co. vs. Minnesota, )&* 8.7., 5! 2 7.

Ct. Rep., ++ 5 . ed., 2 nn vs.


10/125

'he po$ers of the territorial legislatures are derived fro# Congress. B act of Congress their

po$er e1tends =to all rightful sub(ects of legislation not inconsistent $ith the Constitution and

la$s of the 8nited 7tates= and this includes the po$er to define and punish cri#es. 9&+ C.

>., +).:

And in the e1ercise of such po$ers the #ilitar govern#ent of the ar# of occupation, functioning as

a territorial legislature, thought it convenient to establish ne$ rules of procedure in cri#inal #atters,

b the issuance of 3eneral 4rders No. 5*, the prea#ble of $hich reads%

;n the interests of (ustice, and to safeguard the civil liberties of the inhabitants of these

;slands, the criminal code of procedure now in force therein is hereby amended in certain of

its important provisions as indicated in the following enumerated sections. 9E#phasis ours.:

;ts #ain purpose is, therefore, li#ited to cri#inal procedure and its intention is to give to its

provisions the effect of la$ in cri#inal #atters.


11/125

As a #atter of fact, Act No. )**+ is not the first la$ that a#ends 3eneral 4rders No. 5*. 'he

Philippine Co##ission, at various ti#es, had a#ended it b the enact#ent of la$s a#ong $hich $e

#a cite Act No. &, regarding preli#inar investigation, Act No. 2 relating to counsels de

oficio and Act No. 52 about preli#inar investigations b (ustices of the peace of provincial capitals.

ater on, and before the enact#ent of Act No. )**+, herein controverted, the egislature had also

a#ended this 3eneral 4rders No. 5* b the enact#ent of Act No. )+!! regarding appeals to the

7upre#e Court of causes originating in the (ustice of the peace courts and b Act No. )!2 $hich

deals $ith the e1clusion of accused persons fro# the infor#ation in order to be utili6ed as state?s

$itnesses.

'hese a#end#ents repeatedl #ade b the Philippine Co##ission as $ell as b our present

egislature are perfectl $ithin the scope of the po$ers of the said legislative bodies as the

successors of the Militar 3overn#ent that pro#ulgated 3eneral 4rders No. 5*.

No proof is re0uired to de#onstrate that the present egislature had, and had, the po$er to enact

and a#end la$s. 98.7. vs. Bull. &5 Phil., !.: 'hat it has the po$er to legislate on cri#inal #atters is

ver evident fro# the $ording of section ! of the >ones a$ $hich sas%

'hat the legislative authorit herein provided shall have po$er, $hen not inconsistent $ith

this Act, b due enact#ent to a#end, alter, #odif, or repeal an la$, civil or cri#inal,

continued in force b this Act as it #a fro# ti#e to ti#e see fit.

;t is urged the right to prosecute and punish cri#es is an attributed of sovereignt. 'his assertion is

right but it is also true that b reason of the principle of territorialit as applied in the supression, of

cri#es, such po$er is delegated to subordinate govern#ent subdivisions such as territories. As $e

have seen in the beginning, the territorial legislatures have the po$er to define and punish cri#es, a

po$er also possessed b the Philippine egislature b virtue of the provisions of sections !, alread

0uoted, of the >ones a$. 'hese territorial govern#ents are local agencies of the


12/125

'here is not a single constitutional provision applicable to the Philippines prescribing the na#e to be

used as part plaintiff in cri#inal cases.

'he fact that the political status of this countr is as et undeter#ined and in a transitor stage, is, in

our opinion, responsible for the fact that there is no positive provision in our constitutional la$

regarding the use of the na#e of the People of the Philippine ;slands, as part plaintiff, in cri#inal

prosecutions, as is other$ise the case in the respective constitutional charters of the 7tates of the

8nion and incorporated territories a situation $hich #ust not be understood as depriving the

3overn#ent of the Philippines of its po$er, ho$ever delegated, to prosecute public cri#es. 'he fact

is undeniable that the present govern#ent of the Philippines, created b the Congress of the 8nited

7tates, is autono#ous.

'his autono# of the 3overn#ent of the Philippines reaches all (udicial actions, the case at bar

being one of the# as an e1a#ple of such autono#, this 3overn#ent, the sa#e as that of Ha$aii

and Porto Rico 9People of Porto Rico vs. Rosal Castillo @&&, ))! 8.7., )!2 5! . ed., 52!

7up. Ct. Rep., 5): cannot be sued $ithout its consent. 9Merritt vs. 3overn#ent of the Philippine

;slands, Phil., && . 7. Moon F Co. vs. Harrison, p. )!, ante.: 'he doctrine, laid do$n in these

cases, ac"no$ledges the prerogative of personalit in the 3overn#ent of the Philippines, $hich, if itis sufficient to shield it fro# an responsibilit in court in its o$n na#e unless it consents thereto, it

should be also, as sufficientl authoritative in la$, to give that govern#ent the right to prosecute in

court in its o$n na#e $ho#soever violates $ithin its territor the penal la$s in force therein.

Ho$ever, li#iting ourselves to the 0uestion relative to the for# of the co#plaint in cri#inal #atters, it

is $ithin the po$er of the egislature to prescribe the for# of the cri#inal co#plaint as long as the

constitutional provision of the accused to be infor#ed of the nature of the accusation is not violated.

8nder the Constitution of the 8nited 7tates and b li"e provisions in the constitutions of the

various states, the accused is entitled to be infor#ed of the nature and cause of the

accusation against hi# . . .

;t is $ithin the po$er of the legislatures under such a constitutional provision to prescribe the

for# of the indict#ent or infor#ation, and such for# #a o#it aver#ents regarded as

necessar at co##on la$. 9)) Cc., )*5.:

All these considerations apriori are strengthened a posteriori b the i#portant reason disclosed b

the follo$ing fact that the Congress has tacitl approved Act No. )**+. Both the Act of Congress

of >ul &, &2), section *+, and the >ones a$, last paragraph of section &, provide that all the la$s

enacted b the 3overn#ent of the Philippines or its egislature shall be for$arded to the Congress

of the 8nited 7tates, $hich bod reserves the right and po$er to annul the#. And presu#ing, as

legall $e #ust, that the provisions of these la$s have been co#plied $ith, it is undisputed that the

Congress of the 8nited 7tates did not annul an of those acts alread adverted to Nos. &, 2,2 9of the Philippine Co##ission:, and )+!!, )!2 and the one no$ in 0uestion No. )**+ 9of the

present egislature: all of $hich $ere a#endator of 3eneral 4rders No. 5*. 'he Act no$ under

discussion 9No. )**+: too" effect on


13/125

ed. +5 'iaco vs.


14/125

ul &, )22, the Chief 7tate Prosecutor of theGepart#ent of >ustice 9G4>: reco##ended the filing of the corresponding ;nfor#ation against the#.

Mean$hile, on August ), )22, pursuant to Article !2 of the Articles of /ar, respondent 3eneralNarciso Abaa, then A


15/125

consolidated $ith Cri#inal Case No. 2-)+!*, involving the other accused, pending before Branch&* of the R'C, Ma"ati Cit, presided b >udge 4scar B. Pi#entel.

4n August &, )22, the R'C directed the G4> to conduct a reinvestigation of Cri#inal Case No. 2-)!*.

4n the sa#e date, respondent Chief of 7taff issued etter 4rder No. +)5 creating a Pre-'rial;nvestigation Panel tas"ed to deter#ine the propriet of filing $ith the #ilitar tribunal charges forviolations of the Articles of /ar under Co##on$ealth Act No. 2*, as a#ended, against the sa#e#ilitar personnel. 7pecificall, the charges are% 9a: violation of Article + for disrespect to$ard thePresident, the 7ecretar of National Gefense, etc., 9b: violation of Article + for disrespect to$ard asuperior officer, 9c: violation of Article +! for #utin or sedition, 9d: violation of Article + for conductunbeco#ing an officer and a gentle#an, and 9e: violation of Article ! for conduct pre(udicial to goodorder and #ilitar discipline.

4f the original )& accused in Cri#inal Case No. 2-)!*, onl ) 9including petitioners herein:filed $ith the R'C, Branch &* an 4#nibus Motion praing that the said trial court assu#e

(urisdiction over all the charges filed $ith the #ilitar tribunal. 'he invo"ed Republic Act 9R.A.: No.

!255.5

4n 7epte#ber &5, )22, petitioners filed $ith the >udge Advocate 3eneralIs 4ffice 9>A34: a #otionpraing for the suspension of its proceedings until after the R'C shall have resolved their #otion toassu#e (urisdiction.

4n 4ctober ), )22, the Pre-'rial ;nvestigation Panel sub#itted its ;nitial Report to the A


16/125

4n >une &!, )22, Colonel MagnoIs reco##endation $as approved b the A

ul )+, )225, herein petitioners #oved for the dis#issal ofthe case on the ground that the $ere not arraigned $ithin the prescribed period of t$o 9): earsfro# the date of the co##ission of the alleged offense, in violation of Article * of the Articles of/ar &&that =the offense charged prescribed on >ul )5, )225= &)that the 3eneral Court Martial ruled,ho$ever, that =the prescriptive period shall end onl at &)%22 #idnight of >ul )+, )225= &that =9a:s#idnight of >ul )+, )225 $as approaching and it $as beco#ing apparent that the accused could notbe arraigned, the prosecution suddenl changed its position and asserted that ) of the accused

have alread been arraigned= &and that petitioners #oved for a reconsideration but it $as deniedb the general court #artial in its 4rder dated 7epte#ber &, )225. &5

;n his Co##ent, the 7olicitor 3eneral pras that the 7upple#ental Petition be denied for lac" of#erit. He alleges that =contrar to petitionersI pretensions, all the accused $ere dul arraigned on>ul & and &*, )225.= &+'he =9r:ecords sho$ that in the hearing on >ul &, )225, all the ) accused$ere present= and, =9o:n that da, Militar Prosecutor Captain Daren 4ng >ags read the Charges and7pecifications fro# the Charge 7heet in open court 9pp. +, '7N, >ul &, )225:.= &!

'he sole 0uestion for our resolution is $hether the petitioners are entitled to the $rit of prohibition.

'here is no dispute that petitioners, being officers of the A


17/125

dut and $hile on such active dut all trainees undergoing #ilitar instructions and all otherpersons la$full called, drafted, or ordered into, or to dut or for training in the said service, fro# thedates the are re0uired b the ter#s of the call, draft, or order to obe the sa#e.

8pon the other hand, 7ection & of R.A. No. !255 reads%

7EC. &. Me#bers of the Ar#ed


18/125

Here, petitioners are charged for violation of Article + 9conduct unbeco#ing an officer and agentle#an: of the Articles of /ar before the court #artial, thus%

All persons sub(ect to #ilitar la$, did on or about )! >ul )22 at 4a"$ood Hotel, Ma"ati Cit,Metro Manila, $illfull, unla$full and feloniousl 0o6a'3 'h30r &o63 oa'h a& o0c3r& 'o /33/'h3 Co&'0'$'0o, 'h3 6a< a/ 'h3 /$6co&'0'$'3/ a$'hor0'03& a/ a;$&3/ 'h30r co&'0'$'0oa6

/$' 'o ro'3c' 'h3 3o63 a/ 'h3 S'a'3b, a#ong others, atte#pting to oust the incu#bent dul-elected and legiti#ate President b force and violence, seriousl disturbing the peace and tran0uilitof the people and the nation the are s$orn to protect,'h3r3; ca$&0% /0&hoor a/ /0&r3&3c''o 'h3 060'ar ro3&&0o, co/$c' $;3co0% a o0c3r a/ a %3'63a, in violation of A/+ of the Articles of /ar.

C4N'RARL '4 A/. 98nderscoring ours:

Article + of the Articles of /ar )&provides%

AR'. +. 'onduct (nbecoming an )fficer and Gentleman. An officer, #e#ber of the NurseCorps, cadet, fling cadet, or probationar second lieutenant, $ho is convicted of conduct

unbeco#ing an officer and a gentle#an shall be /0&0&&3/ ro 'h3 &3r0c3. 98nderscoring ours:

/e hold that the offense for violation of Article + of the Articles of /ar is service-connected. 'his ise1pressl provided in 7ection & 9second paragraph: of R.A. No. !255. ;t bears stressing that thecharge against the petitioners concerns the alleged 0o6a'0o o 'h30r &o63 oa'h a& o0c3r&todefend the Constitution and the dul-constituted authorities.7uch violation allegedl ca$&3//0&hoor a/ /0&r3&3c' 'o 'h3 060'ar ro3&&0o. ;n short, the charge has a bearing ontheir ro3&&0oa6co/$c'or ;3ha0oras #ilitar officers. E0uall indicative of the =service-connected= nature of the offense is the penalt prescribed for the sa#e /0&0&&a6 ro 'h3&3r0c3 = i#posable onl b the #ilitar court.7uch penalt is $r36 /0&c060ar in character,evidentl intended to cleanse the #ilitar profession of #isfits and to preserve the stringent standardof #ilitar discipline.

4bviousl, there is no #erit in petitionersI argu#ent that the can no longer be charged before thecourt #artial for violation of Article + of the Articles of /ar because the sa#e has been declared bthe R'C in its 4rder of ustice Ro#eo >. Calle(o, 7r., held%

/e agree $ith the respondents that the s$eeping declaration #ade b the R'C 9Branch &*: in thedispositive portion of its 4rder dated


19/125

'he second paragraph of the above provision 9referring to 7ection & of R.A. No. !255: e1plicitlspecifies $hat are considered =service-connected cri#es or offenses= under Co##on$ealth Act No.2*, as a#ended, also "no$n as the Articles of /ar, to $it%

Articles 5 to !2%

Art. 5.


20/125

Art. !. Releasing Prisoner /ithout Authorit.

Art. !5. Geliver of 4ffenders to Civil Authorities.

Art. !+. Misbehavior Before the Ene#.

Art. !!. 7ubordinates Co#pelling Co##ander to 7urrender.

Art. !*. ;#proper 8se of Countersign.

Art. !.


21/125

Art. !. 3eneral Article.

ustice Antonio '. Carpio during the deliberation of this caseis $orth 0uoting, thus%

'he trial court aggravated its error $hen it (ustified its ruling b holding that the charge of Conduct8nbeco#ing an 4fficer and a 3entle#an is absorbed and in furtherance to the alleged cri#e ofcoup dIetat.I


22/125

no$ do so onl if the offense charged is not one of the service-connected offenses specified in7ection & of RA !255. 7uch is not the situation in the present case.

/ith respect to the issue of prescription raised b petitioners in their 7upple#ental Petition, suffice itto sa that $e cannot entertain the sa#e. 'he contending parties are at loggerheads as to 9a: $hoa#ong the petitioners $ere actuall arraigned, and 9b: the dates of their arraign#ent. 'hese are

#atters involving 0uestions of fact, not $ithin our po$er of revie$, as $e are not a trier of facts. ;n apetition for prohibition, such as the one at bar, onl legal issues affecting the (urisdiction of thetribunal, board or officer involved #a be resolved on the basis of the undisputed facts. )+

Clearl, the instant petition for prohibition #ust fail. 'he office of prohibition is to prevent the unla$fuland oppressive e1ercise of authorit and is directed against proceedings that are done $ithout or ine1cess of (urisdiction, or $ith grave abuse of discretion, there being no appeal or other plain, speed,and ade0uate re#ed in the ordinar course of la$. )!7tated differentl, prohibition is the re#ed toprevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons fro# usurping or e1ercising a (urisdiction orpo$er $ith $hich the have not been vested b la$. )*

;n fine, this Court holds that herein respondents have the authorit in convening a court #artial and

in charging petitioners $ith violation of Article + of the Articles of /ar.

>HEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition is G;7M;77EG.

SO ORERE.

ANGELINA SANO+ALGUTIERRE!

Associate >ustice

/E C4NC8R%

ARTEMIO +. PANGANI-AN

Chief >ustice

RE*NATO S. PUNOAssociate >ustice

CONSUELO *NARESSANTIAGOAssociate >ustice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIAMARTINE!Associate >ustice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate >ustice

AOLFO S. A!CUNAAssociate >ustice

LEONARO A. ?UISUM-INGAssociate >ustice

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate >ustice

ENATO C. CORONAAssociate >ustice

ROMEO . CALLEO, SR.Associate >ustice

ANTE O. TINGAAssociate >ustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt28


23/125


24/125

=Article *. As to 'i#e. E1cept for desertion or #urder co##itted in ti#e of $ar, or for#utin, no person sub(ect to #ilitar la$ shall be liable to be tried or punished b a court-#artial for an cri#e or offense co##itted #ore than t$o ears before the arraign#ent ofsuch person% 1 1 1.=

&)Pars. *, &*, 7upple#ental Petition, pp. 5, &2.

&Par. , id.

&Par. &2, id. Petitioners stated, under this footnote, that the =9r:ulings before the 3eneralCourt Martial $ere done orall unavailabilit of the '7N for the >ul )+, )225 hearing.=

&5Par. &, id.

&+Co##ent, p. &2.

&!;d., p. &*.

&*3loria, PH;;PP;NE M;;'ARL A/ Annotated, revised edition, p. .

&;d.

)2;d., pp. -5.

)&Co##on$ealth Act No. 2*, as a#ended b Republic Act No. )) 9approved on >une &),&*:.

))Arnado v.Buban, A.M. No. M'>-2-&5, Ma &, )22, 2 7CRA *), *+ Republic v.Estipular, 3.R. No. &+5**, >ul )2, )222, + 7CRA , 2.

)Resins, ;nc. v. Auditor 3eneral, 3.R. No. &!***, 4ctober ), &+*, )5 7CRA !5.

)3.R. Nos. &+)&* and &+)&, 4ctober )5, )22, & 7CRA , 2-)&.

)5E.g., Murder 9Article )*: and Robber 9Articles )-)5: absorbed b Rebellion 9Article&: of the Revised Penal Code 9People v. Hernande6, Phil. 5&5 @&5+ ;llegalPossession of Mari(uana 97ection *, Republic Act No. +)5: absorbed b ;llegal 7ale ofMari(uana 97ection , Republic Act No. +)5: 9People v. Ge >esus, )) Phil. 5&* @&*+:.

)+"afinco Trading 'orp. v. )ple, No. -!!2, March )5, &!+, !2 7CRA &, &+2-&+&.

)!7ection ), Rule +5 of the &! Rules of Civil Procedure, as a#ended +ergara v. ,ugue,No. -)*, August )+, &!!, !* 7CRA &).

)*"atuguina *ntegrated ood Products *nc. v. 'ourt of Appeals, 3.R. No. *&2, 4ctober), &+, )+ 7CRA 2.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-28


25/125

Agenda of August *, )22+

;te# No. +!

G.R. No. 1"4##7 9'. @73 E83ENE 34NOAE7, '. @73 ANGL '4RRA'4, '. @73 AN'4N;4'R;ANE7 ;J, CP'. 3ARL AE>AN4, '. @73 >AME7 AL83, CP'. N;CAN4R 47, '. @>3 AR'8R4 PA7C8A, E' A. v.3EN. NARC;74 ABALA, in his capacit as the Chief-of-7taff of the ARMEG R., in his capacit as the >udge

Advocate 3eneral of the >udge Advocate 3eneral 4ffice @>A34:

Pro#ulgated%

August &2, )22+

C4NC8RR;N3 4P;N;4N

CALLEO, SR., .:

; concur $ith the enco#passing ponencia of Mada#e >ustice Angelina 7andoval-3utierre6 orderingthe dis#issal of the petition. Ho$ever, ; find it necessar to elucidate on # opinion relative to thesub#ission of petitioners that the punitive act for conduct unbeco#ing an officer and a gentle#andefined in Article + of the Articles of /ar is absorbed b coup dIetat, a political felon, especiall inlight of the opinion of the Pre-'rial ;nvestigation Panel that the punitive act as $ell as these service-connected punitive acts defined in Articles +, +, + and ! of the Articles of /ar, are indeedabsorbed b coup dIetat.

'he charge against petitioners reads%

Jiolation of Article +

All persons sub(ect to #ilitar la$, did on or about )! >ul )22 at 4a"$ood Hotel, Ma"ati Cit,Ma"ati, Metro Manila, $illfull, unla$full and feloniousl violate their sole#n oath as officers todefend the Constitution, the la$ and the dul-constituted authorities and abuse their constitutionaldut to protect the people and the 7tate b, a#ong others, atte#pting to oust the incu#bent dul-elected and legiti#ate president b force and violence, seriousl disturbing the peace and tran0uilitof the people and the nation the are s$orn to protect, thereb causing dishonor and disrespect tothe #ilitar profession, conduct unbeco#ing an officer and a gentle#an, in violation of A/ + of the

Articles of /ar.

C4N'RARL '4 A/.

Article + of the Articles of /ar defines the punitive act of conduct unbeco#ing an officer and agentle#an as follo$s%

Art. +. Conduct 8nbeco#ing an 4fficer and 3entle#an. An officer, cadet, fling cadet, orprobationar second lieutenant, $ho is convicted of conduct unbeco#ing an officer and a gentle#anshall be dis#issed fro# the service.


26/125

Case la$ has it that co##on cri#es co##itted in furtherance of a political cri#e, such as rebellion,are therein absorbed. A political cri#e is one directl ai#ed against the political order as $ell as suchco##on cri#es as #a be co##itted to achieve a political purpose. 'he decisive factor is the intentor #otive. Coup dIetat is a political cri#e because the purpose of the plotters is to sei6e or di#inish7tate po$er. ;f a cri#e usuall regarded as co##on, li"e #urder, is perpetrated to achieve a politicalpurpose, then said co##on cri#e is stripped of its co##on co#ple1ion, inas#uch as, being part

and parcel of the cri#e of rebellion, the for#er ac0uires the political character of the latter.&

7uchco##on offenses assu#e the political co#ple1ion of the #ain cri#e of $hich the are #ereingredients, and, conse0uentl, cannot be punished separatel fro# the principal offense, orco#ple1ed $ith the sa#e to (ustif the i#position of the graver penalt.)

;n Ponce Enrile v. A#in,the court ruled that the principle of absorption of co##on cri#es b thepolitical cri#e applies to cri#es defined and penali6ed b special la$s, such as Presidential GecreeNo. &*), other$ise "no$n as 4bstruction of >ustice. Ho$ever, in Balosis v. Chave6,>r., the Court ruled that the rulings of this Court in People v. Hernande6, 5Ponce Enrile v.

A#in +and Enrile v. 7ala6ar, !do not appl to cri#es $hich, b statutor fiat, are sui generis.

;ndeed, the service-connected punitive acts defined and penali6ed under the Articles of /ar are sui

generis offenses not absorbed b rebellion perpetrated, inter alia, b the officers and enlistedpersonnel of the Ar#ed


27/125

'he Articles of /ar is the organic la$ of the A


28/125

precisel to cri#inali6e =#utin= under Article +! of the Articles of /ar and to penali6e the punitiveact of #utin, under the Articles of /ar as coup dIetat. Article +! of the Articles of /ar reads%

Art. +!. Mutin or 7edition. An person sub(ect to #ilitar la$ $ho atte#pts to create or $hobegins, e1cites, causes, or (oins in an #utin or sedition in an co#pan, part, post, ca#p,detach#ent, guard, or other co##and shall suffer death or such other punish#ent as a court-#artial

#a direct.

/ithout Article &-A in the Revised Penal Code, the #utineers $ould be charged for #utin underArticle +! of the Articles of /ar%

7enator ina. Les, Mr. President.

7enator Enrile. 'hen $e added Article &-A $hich deals $ith the ne$ cri#e of coup dIetat.

7enator Enrile. and $e defined ho$ this ne$l characteri6ed and defined cri#e $ould beco##itted in Article &-A


7enator Enrile. And, in fact, $e #ade a distinction bet$een the penalt of the cri#es defined underArticle & of the Revised Penal Code and the cri#e defined under Article &-A, is this correct, Mr.President


7enator Enrile. ;n fact, $e distinguished bet$een the conspirac and proposal to co##it the cri#e ofrebellion fro# the conspirac and proposal to co##it coup dI etat


7enator Enrile. 7o that, for all intents and purposes, therefore, $e are defining a ne$ cri#e underthis proposed #easure


7enator Enrile.$hich is coup dIetat. /e are, in effect, bringing into the Revised Penal Code, acri#e that $as penali6ed under the Articles of /ar as far as #ilitar participants are concerned andcall it $ith its na#e =coup dIetat=

7enator ina. Les, Mr. President. 'hat is the . . .

7enator Enrile. Because $ithout this cri#inali6ation of coup dIetat under the Revised Penal Code,people in the active service $ould be charged $ith #utin

7enator ina. Les, Mr. President. Especiall $hen the are inside the ca#p, $hen the ran"-and-filego up to ar#s or insubordination or against the orders of their superiors, the $ould be chargedunder the Articles of /ar.


29/125

7enator Enrile. ;n fact, one of the distinguishing features of a coup dIetat as defined here is, apartfro# the overt acts of ta"ing a s$ift attac" $ith violence, inti#idation, threat, strateg, or stealthagainst the dul-constituted authorities or an installation, et cetera, the pri#ar ingredient of this$ould be the sei6ure or di#inution of state po$er.

7enator ina. Les, that is the ob(ective, Mr. President.

7enator Enrile. 4n the other hand, in the case of rebellion as defined under Article &, it does notnecessaril #ean a sei6ure of 7tate po$er or di#inution of 7tate po$er, but all that is needed $ouldbe to deprive the Chief E1ecutive or the legislature of an of its po$ers.

7enator ina. 'hat is correct, Mr. President.

7enator Enrile. 7o that, there is a basis to consider a clear and definable distinction bet$een thecri#e of coup dIetat and the cri#e of rebellion as defined under Article &5


7enator Enrile. ; (ust $ant to put that into the Record.

'hus, officers and enlisted personnel of the A

ustice

Foo'o'3&

&People v. Hernande6, Phil. 5&5, 5+ 9&5+:.

);d. at 5&.

3.R. No. 5, 7epte#ber &, &2, &* 7CRA 5!, 5*2-5*&.

3.R. No. 5&+, 4ctober , &&, )2) 7CRA 25, &+.

57upra note &.

+7upra note .

!3.R. No. )&+, >une 5, &2, &*+ 7CRA )&!.

*Michigan v. /agner, !! N./. )).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt-8


30/125

oving v. 8.7., 5&! 8.7. !*, !!*, &&+ 7.Ct. &!! 9&++:.

&23loria, Philippine Militar a$ Annotated, p. .

&&Carter v. Roberto, &!! 8.7. ! 9&22:.

&)8.7. v. /eldon, ! M.>. * 9&!:.

&Par"er v. ev, &! 8.7. ! 9&!:.

&8.7. v. 'alor, ) M.>. & 9&*!:.

&5Article , Articles of /ar.

&+7upra note &, p.&!, citing /inthrop, Militar a$ and Precedents 9)nd ed.:, .

&!8.7. e1 rel. 'oth v. uarles, 52 8.7. && 9&55:.

&*4rloff v. /illoughb, 5 8.7. * 9&5:

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

G.R. No. 1"4##7 '. 973: E83ENE 34NOAE7, '. 973: ANGL '4RRA'4, '. 973: AN'4N;4'R;ANE7 ;J, CAP'. 3ARL AE>AN4, '. 973: >AME7 AL83, CP'. N;CAN4R 47, '. 9>3: AR'8R4 PA7C8A, and &'.

>4NHNE 7AN33AAN3, Petitioners, versus 3EN. NARC;74 ABALA, in his capacit as Chief of7taff of the Ar#ed


31/125

de#ocrac in &*+. 'he rationale that sustains the #a(orit position stands ath$art to that i#portantconstitutional principle as effectuated through RA !255.

;nstead, # position hinges on the peculiar nature of Article + of the Articles of /ar, the violation of$hich petitioners stand accused of before the court-#artial. Not onl does Article + e#bod a ruleuni0uel #ilitar in nature, it also prescribes a penalt $holl ad#inistrative in character $hich the

civilian courts are incapable of rendering. For 'ha' r3a&o a6o3, ; agree that petitioners #a standcivilian trial for coup d$etatand court-#artial for violation of Article +.

7till, ; ac"no$ledge that ; $ould have voted to grant the petition had petitioners faced other charges,instead of the sole Article + charge, before the court-#artial in connection $ith the 4a"$ood#utin. ; sub#it that RA !255 precisel authori6es the civil court to independentl deter#ine $hetherthe offense sub(ect of the infor#ation before it is actuall service-connected. ;f the trial court doesdeter#ine, before arraign#ent, that the offense is service-connected, it follo$s that, as a rule, the#ilitar court $ill not have (urisdiction over the acts constituting the offense.

,estatement of ,elevant acts

'he follo$ing facts ; consider relevant.

4n 5 August )22, (ust a little over a $ee" after the so-called 4a"$ood #utin, the Gepart#ent of>ustice filed an ;nfor#ation $ith the Regional 'rial Court 9R'C: of Ma"ati against )& #ilitarpersonnel, including petitioners, for violation of Article &-A of the Revised Penal Code $hich is thecri#e of coup d$etat. After the case $as doc"eted as Cri#inal Case No. 2-)!*, the R'C directedthe G4> to conduct a reinvestigation of the said case. 4n the sa#e da that the order for re-investigation $as issued, the A

then filed a #otion for dis#issal of the charge of coupd$etatagainst the )2 others, $hich #otion $as granted b the R'C in an 4rder dated & Nove#ber)22. Petitioners $ere a#ong the & $ho still faced the charge of coup d$etatbefore the R'C.

Not$ithstanding the dis#issal of the charge of coup d$etatagainst the )2 soldiers, the $ere stillcharged before the 3eneral Court Martial for violation of Articles +, +, +!, + and ! of the Articlesof /ar. )A#ong the charges faced b these soldiers $as for =#utin,= punishable under Article+. O6 'ho&3 &o6/03r& 'h3 char%3 o coup detata%a0&'


32/125

;t $as on && une )22, captioned =Gisposition ar 54 'o 7#, 72 'o 92, a/ 95 'o 97, 'h3'h3 co$r'ar'0a6 roc33/0%&


33/125

'here are three funda#ental 0uestions that are conse0uentl raised. F0r&', ca Co%r3&& ; 6auris7ecundu#%

Th3 @$r0&/0c'0o o a co$r'ar'0a6 0& r30&3/ o a a$'hor0D3/ co30% a$'hor0', co$r'3;3r&h0 0 accor/ac3


35/125

regularl functioning, #ilitar tribunals cannot tr and e1ercise (urisdiction over #ilitar #en forcri#inal offenses co##itted b the# and $hich are properl cogni6able b the civil courts. 'o have itother$ise $ould be a violation of the afore#entioned constitutional provisions on the supre#ac ofcivilian authorit over the #ilitar and the integrit and independence of the (udiciar, as $ell as thedue process and e0ual-protection clauses of the Constitution.=)

Th3 '0'63 o 'h3 6a< a6o3 0& a6r3a/ 0/0ca'03 o 'h3 6a


36/125

;n the other, the soldier is charged $ith both violation of the Articles of /ar 9triable b court-#artial:and a cri#inal offense involving the sa#e act 9triable b the civilian court:. Here, a different set ofrules operates. RA !255 co#es into application in such a case. 7ection & of RA !255 clearl reposeson the trial court, and not the court-#artial, the dut to deter#ine $hether the charges in theinfor#ation are service-connected. I 'h3 c0060a co$r' a3& a /3'3r0a'0o 'ha' 'h3 ac'&0o63/ ar3 o' &3r0c3co3c'3/, 'h3 'h3 co$r'ar'0a6 ar54 'o 7#, 72 'o 92, a/ 95 'o 97, 'h3 &3c00c ar'0c63& 'o


37/125

/orse, b advocating =facial e1a#ination= as a li#it, this vie$ $ould actuall allo$ #alfeasors in the#ilitar to evade (ustice, if the are fortunate enough to have s#pathi6ers $ithin the #ilitar brass$illing to charge the# $ith a violation of the afore#entioned articles of $ar in order that the escapethe possibl harsher scrutin of the civilian courts. ustice Carpio adds, =@if the offense, asalleged in the charge sheet, falls under the enu#eration of service-connected offenses in 7ection &of RA No. !255, then the #ilitar court has (urisdiction over the offense.=

Appling >ustice CarpioIs analsis to this theoretical e1a#ple, the offense is =as alleged in thecharge sheet= is a violation of Article 5 of the Articles of /ar. Article 5 =falls under the enu#erationof service-connected offenses in 7ection & of R.A. No. !255.= 'hen, according to >ustice Carpio, =the#ilitar court has (urisdiction over the offense.= Let 7ection & also

states that as a general rule that it is the civilian courts $hich have (urisdiction to tr theoffense, 3c3'


38/125

'he #a(orit sho$s little respect for the plain language of the la$. As earlier noted, the believe thatthe deter#ination reposed in the civilian court is li#ited to a facial e1a#ination of the #ilitar chargesheet to ascertain $hether the defendants have been charged before the court-#artial $ith theviolation of Articles of /ar 5 to !2, !) to ), and 5 to !. 'heir position could have been sustainedhad 7ection & read, =As used in this 7ection, service-connected cri#es or offenses ar3thosedefined in Articles 5 to !2, Articles !) to ), and Articles 5 to ! of Co##on$ealth Act No. 2*, as

a#ended,= discarding the phrase =shall be li#ited to= i##ediatel preceding the $ords =thosedefined.= 7uch phraseolog #a"es it clear that =service-connected cri#es or offenses= aree0uivalent to =Articles 5 to !2, Articles !) to ), and Articles 5 to !.= Let 7ection & is hardl stledin that fashion. ;nstead, it precisel reads, =111 service-connected cri#es or offenses &ha66 ;3600'3/ 'othose defined in Articles 5 to !2 111.=

/hat is the i#plication of the phrase =shall be li#ited to= 'his has to be tied to the role ofdeter#ination ascribed to the civilian court in the previous paragraph under 7ection &. Note again,=deter#ination= signifies that the civilian court has to underta"e an in0uir $hether or not the actsare service connected. As stated earlier, the Articles of /ar specified in 7ection & serve as guides forsuch deter#ination. =shall be li#ited to= assures that the civilian court cannot rel on a ground notrooted on those afore#entioned articles in ruling that an offense is service-connected.


39/125


40/125

the court-#artial are the sa#e, then the defendants #a be tried onl either before the civilian courtsor the court-#artial, and not in both tribunals.

Th0& 0& r3c0&36 ha' /o


41/125

violation of the Articles of /ar. 7uch opinion #ight be cited to refute the declaration in the R'C4rder that the acts charged before the court-#artial $ere absorbed in the cri#e of coup d$etat. Letcaution should be had before this opinion of 7enator 'aada is cited for that purpose. 'he 0uotedre#ar"s $ere #ade on )& Ma &2, or five 95: #onths before the cri#e of coup d$etat$asincorporated into the Revised Penal Code $ith the enact#ent of Republic Act No. ++* on )4ctober &2. Certainl, $hen 7enator 'aada #ade such opinion, he had no reason to believe that

the cited Articles of /ar did not constitute an violation of the Revised Penal Code, particularl thecri#e of coup d$etat, since no such cri#e e1isted then.

1ouble 0eopardy

'here is another vital reason RA !255 cannot be interpreted in such a $a as to per#it both civilianand #ilitar trials of #ilitar personnel over the sa#e act. Gouble (eopard $ould arise as aconse0uence if such an interpretation $ere foisted.

;t is ver $ell settled that double (eopard attaches if one is tried b both a #ilitar court and acivilian court over the sa#e act, not$ithstanding the differing natures of both tribunals. 'he rule $aspronounced b the Philippine 7upre#e Court as far bac" as &2, in (.%. v.'olley. 'herein, the

defendant $as sentenced to death b a court-#artial after #urdering a fello$ soldier, but thesentence could not be carried out after the revie$ing authorit of the Ar# concluded that the#ilitar authorities $ere $ithout po$er to carr into e1ecution the sentence. He then $as charged$ith the sa#e offense before a civilian court. ;n ruling that the cri#inal case should be dis#issed,the Court ruled that the cri#inal trial $as barred b double (eopard. 'he Court pronounced% =7ohere there is but one offense, that against the 8nited 7tates, and $hen the 3overn#ent chooses thetribunal in $hich to tr an offender, $hen the trial ta"es place in that tribunal, and $hen the accusedis convicted and sentenced, he can not again be put in (eopard in another court of the sa#esovereignt. 111 ;t follo$s that the defendant having been once in (eopard can not be tried again forthe offense of $hich he $as for#erl convicted.= 2A si#ilar situation obtained in (.%. v.Tubig, &decided so#e #onths later, and a si#ilar (udg#ent of ac0uittal $as #andated b the Courton the ground of double (eopard.

'he doctrine has survived past the A#erican occupation. ;n &5, the Court $as again confronted$ith the issue $hether a sentence passed b a #ilitar court barred further prosecution of the sa#eoffense in a civilian court. 'he Court, in 'risologo v. People, )s0uarel ruled that double (eopardindeed barred such prosecution%

As $e see it, the case hinges on $hether the decision of the #ilitar court constitutes a bar to furtherprosecution for the sa#e offense in the civil courts.

'he 0uestion is not of first i#pression in this (urisdiction. ;n the case of 8. 7. vs. 'ubig, Phil., ), asoldier of the 8nited 7tates Ar# in the Philippines $as charged in the Court of


42/125

#ilitar court, he pleaded it in bar of proceedings against hi# in the civil court, but the latter courtoverruled the plea and after trial found hi# guilt of ho#icide and sentenced hi# to prison. 'hesentence $as affir#ed b this 7upre#e Court, but on appeal to the 7upre#e Court of the 8nited7tates, the sentence $as reversed and defendant ac0uitted, that court holding that =defendant,having been ac0uitted of the cri#e of ho#icide alleged to have been co##itted b hi# b a court-#artial of co#petent (urisdiction proceeding under the authorit of the 8nited 7tates, cannot be

subse0uentl tried for the sa#e offense in a civil court e1ercising authorit in the Philippines.=

'here is, for sure, a rule that $here an act transgresses both civil and #ilitar la$ and sub(ects theoffender to punish#ent b both civil and #ilitar authorit, a conviction or an ac0uittal in a civil courtcannot be pleaded as a bar to a prosecution in the #ilitar court, and vice versa. But the rule =isstrictl li#ited to the case of a single act $hich infringes both the civil and the #ilitar la$ in such a#anner as to constitute t$o distinct offenses, one of $hich is $ithin the cogni6ance of the #ilitarcourts and the other a sub(ect of civil (urisdiction= 9&5 A#. >ur., !):, and it does not appl $here bothcourts derive their po$ers fro# the sa#e sovereignt. 9)) C. >. 7., .: ;t therefore, has noapplication to the present case $here the #ilitar court that convicted the petitioner and the civilcourt $hich proposes to tr hi# again derive their po$ers fro# one sovereignt and it is not disputedthat the charges of treason tried in the court-#artial $ere punishable under the Articles of /ar, itbeing as a #atter of fact i#pliedl ad#itted b the 7olicitor 3eneral that the t$o courts haveconcurrent (urisdiction over the offense charged.

As noted earlier, "arcos, reling on /inthropIs Militar a$, pronounced that courts-#artial are stillcourts in constitutional conte#plation. At the sa#e ti#e, the Court in "arcospursued the logic ofthis thin"ing insofar as double (eopard $as concerned%

Besides, that a court-#artial is a court, and the prosecution of an accused before it is a cri#inal andnot an ad#inistrative case, and therefore it $ould be, under certain conditions, a bar to anotherprosecution of the defendant for the sa#e offense, because the latter $ould place the accused indouble (eopard, is sho$n b the decision of the 7upre#e Court of the 8nited 7tates in the case of3rafton vs. 8nited 7tates, )2+ 8. 7. 5& a$. Ed., &2**, &2), in $hich the follo$ing $as held%

=;f a court-#artial has (urisdiction to tr an officer or soldier for a cri#e, its (udg#ent $ill be accordedthe finalit and conclusiveness as to the issues involved $hich attend the (udg#ents of a civil courtin a case of $hich it #a legall ta"e cogni6ance . . . and restricting our decision to the above0uestion of double (eopard, $e ad(udge that, consistentl $ith the above act of &2), and for thereasons stated, the plaintiff in error, a soldier in the Ar#, having been ac0uitted of the cri#e ofho#icide, alleged to have been co##itted b hi# in the Philippines, b a #ilitar court of co#petent

(urisdiction, proceeding under the authorit of the 8nited 7tates, could not be subse0uentl tried forthe sa#e offense in a civil court e1ercising authorit in that territor.=

; a# a$are that follo$ing the CourtIs & ruling in People v. Pineda, 5double (eopard $ill notattach unless either the R'C or the court-#artial passes sentence on the petitioners. Let evenappling the Pinedadoctrine, it is inevitable that, once either tribunal renders (udg#ent on the

#erits, double (eopard $ould bar the further prosecution b the court $hich $as last in ti#e topronounce sentence, regardless $hether petitioners $ere convicted or ac0uitted. ;f both the R'Ctrial for coup d$etatand the court-#artial of the petitioners are allo$ed to proceed unha#pered, thestrong li"elihood arises that either one $ill be eventuall #ooted, no #atter the stage, should theother pronounce sentence.

; sub#it that RA !255 precisel sought to avoid such a scenario b prescribing, as a general rule, ane1clusivel civilian trial for #ilitar personnel charged $ith offenses punishable under our penal la$s,even if the are also punishable under the Articles of /ar. 'he onl general e1ception lies if the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt45


43/125

civilian court deter#ines that the acts constituting the court-#artial offenses are service-connected,as defined under those Articles of /ar referred to in 7ection &, in $hich case (urisdiction fallse1clusivel $ith the court-#artial. ;f the civilian court arrives at a contrar deter#ination, the civiliancourt retains (urisdiction to the e1clusion of the court-#artial unless and until such deter#ination isreconsidered or set aside, or unless the cri#inal case is dis#issed or dropped for reasons other thanac0uittal on the #erits. 'he onl e1ception ; a# $illing to concede is if the charge before the court-

#artial falls under Article +, $hich ; $ill discuss further.

/otion of Absorption of 'rimes

*rrelevant to 1etermination under ,A 2344

; $ould li"e to d$ell briefl on the suggestion that the R'C erred in pronouncing that the acts for$hich petitioners $ere charged before the court-#artial $ere =absorbed= in the cri#e of coup d$etat.

>ustice Calle(o, 7r., in his Concurring 4pinion, cites 8aylosis v. 'have9, +and the rule that thedoctrines laid do$n on the absorption of co##on cri#es b political cri#es do not appl to cri#es

$hich are sui generis offenses.

'his aspect is no longer #aterial to # o$n disposition of the petition, et ; thin" it is #isplaced toappl the doctrine of absorption of cri#es to the deter#ination of service-connected offenses #adeb the civilian court pursuant to 7ection & of RA !255. 'he function of such deter#ination b the trialcourt under RA !255 is $holl different fro# that utili6ed b the trial court in ascertaining $hethercri#e A is absorbed b cri#e B in the classic cri#inal la$ conte1t. 'he latter is #aterial to the trialcourt in reaching conclusions as to $hich cri#es #a be considered against the accused and $hichpenalties #a appl as to the#. Ho$ever, the purpose of the deter#ination under RA !255 is #erelfor establishing $hether the acts for $hich the accused stand charged before the courts-#artial areindeed service-connected offenses cogni6able e1clusivel before the #ilitar courts, or non-serviceconnected offenses cogni6able e1clusivel before the civilian courts. 'he deter#ining factor is$hether the act is =service-connected,= not $hether one act is absorbed into the other.

'he R'C #a have been too loose in language $hen it utili6ed the $ord =absorbed,= et the $ordshould not be appreciated in the conte1t of absorption of cri#es, as such consideration is $hollirrelevant for purposes of 7ection &. ;nstead, ; thin" that the pertinent conclusion of the R'C in its4rder $as that the acts charged before the court-#artial $ere not service-connected, as the $ereco##itted in furtherance of the cri#e of coup d$etat. 'his, and not the notion of absorption of cri#es,should be the foundational basis for an attac" of the R'C 4rder.

The %pecial 'ircumstance %urrounding Article of ar :;

;t is # general conclusion that if the civilian court #a"es a deter#ination that the acts for $hich theaccused stands charged of, for violating those Articles of /ar referred to in 7ection & of RA !255,are not service-connected, then such deter#ination, once final, deprives the court-#artial (urisdictionto tr the offense. Ho$ever, ; sub#it that Article of /ar + $arrants special consideration, as it differs

in character fro# the other Articles of /ar referred to in 7ection & of RA !255.

Article + of Co##on$ealth Act No. 2*, as a#ended, reads%

Art. +. 'onduct (nbecoming an )fficer and a Gentleman. An officer, cadet, fling cadet, orprobationar second lieutenant, $ho is convicted of conduct unbeco#ing an officer and a gentle#anshall be dis#issed fro# the service.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_164007_2006.html#fnt46


44/125

>ustice Calle(o, 7r. points out in his Concurring 4pinion that =conduct unbeco#ing an officer and agentle#an is a uni0uel #ilitar offense,= !and that =@the article proscribing conduct unbeco#ing anofficer and a gentle#an has been held to be $holl independent of other definitions of offenses 111@and is not sub(ect to pree#ption b other punitive articles.=*;t is difficult to dispute theseconclusions, $hich derive fro# A#erican #ilitar case la$. After all, =conduct unbeco#ing= pertainsto the uni0ue e1igencies of #ilitar life and discipline, $hereb an officer is e1pected to confor# to

an idiosncratic eti0uette not re0uired of civilians.

Let #ore pertinent to # position is the penalt prescribed b Article + for =conduct unbeco#ing.='he penalt is dis#issal fro# service, a penalt $hich is ad#inistrative in character, and beond the

(urisdiction of the civilian court to i#pose. Notabl, of all the Articles of /ar referred to in 7ection & ofRA !255, it is onl Article + that provides for dis#issal fro# service as the e1clusive penalt. All theother articles so #entioned allo$ for the penalt of death, i#prison#ent, or a punish#ent =as acourt-#artial #a so direct= $hich could ver $ell constitute an deprivation of life or libert. /hilethese other articles prescribes a penalt $hich is penal in nature, it is onl Article + $hich providesfor a penalt $hich is ad#inistrative in character.

As a result, ; a# prepared to conclude that courts-#artial retain the (urisdiction to tr violations of

Article + of Co##on$ealth Act No. 2*, or conduct unbeco#ing of an officer, even if the R'Cdeter#ines that the acts constituting such violation are service-connected. 'he intent of RA !255 isto restore to civilian courts (urisdiction over offenses $hich are properl cogni6able b the# to thee1clusion of courts-#artial. 7uch intent could obviousl not e1tend to those offenses $hich thecivilian courts do not have (urisdiction to tr and punish. Civilian courts are utterl incapable ofpenali6ing #ilitar officers $ith the penalt of discharge fro# the service, since the penalt isad#inistrative in characterand i#posable onl b the #ilitar chain of co##and.

Petition %hould Have 8een Granted *f Petitioners

ere 'harged (nder A 1ifferent Article of ar

7till, if petitioners $ere facing the charge of #utin under Article + of the Articles of /ar, or another Article of /ar for that #atter, in connection $ith the 4a"$ood incident, the petition $ould havebeen full #eritorious. 'he R'C has #ade a deter#ination that all acts related to the 4a"$oodincident are not service-connected offenses. ; a# not full prepared to subscribe to the position thatthe acts relating to 4a"$ood $ere =absorbed= in the offense of coup d$etat. Ho$ever, ; do concedet$o i#portant points.


45/125

But $as the govern#ent trul offended b the R'C 4rder ;f it $ere, it should have ti#el elevatedthe sa#e for appellate revie$. 'he fact that it did not gives further indication that the govern#entrecogni6ed that 4rder as funda#entall correct, especiall considering that it contains the ver sa#econclusions reached b the Pre-'rial ;nvestigating Panel constituted b the A


46/125


47/125

the ani#als, and suitable and proper facilities for loading and unloading cattle or other

ani#als upon or fro# vessels upon $hich the are transported, $ithout cruelt or

unnecessar suffering. ;t is hereb #ade unla$ful to load or unload cattle upon or fro#

vessels b s$inging the# over the side b #eans of ropes or chains attached to the thorns.

7ection of Act No. 55 provides that

An o$ner or #aster of a vessel, or custodian of such ani#als, $ho "no$ingl and $illfull

fails to co#pl $ith the provisions of section one, shall, for ever such failure, be liable to pa

a penalt of not less that one hundred dollars nor #ore that five hundred dollars, 8nited

7tates #one, for each offense. Prosecution under this Act #a be instituted in an Court of


48/125

'he offense then $as thus co##itted $ithin the territorial (urisdiction of the court, but the ob(ection to

the (urisdiction raises the further 0uestion $hether that (urisdiction is restricted b the fact of the

nationalit of the ship. Ever. Ever state has co#plete control and (urisdiction over its territorial

$aters. According to strict legal right, even public vessels #a not enter the ports of a friendl po$er

$ithout per#ission, but it is no$ conceded that in the absence of a prohibition such ports are

considered as open to the public ship of all friendl po$ers. 'he e1e#ption of such vessels fro#

local (urisdiction $hile $ithin such $aters $as not established until $ithin co#parativel recent ti#es.

;n &!, Attorne-3eneral Bradford, and in &!+ Attorne-3eneral ee, rendered opinions to the

effect that =the la$s of nations invest the co##ander of a foreign ship of $ar $ith no e1e#ption fro#

the (urisdiction of the countr into $hich he co#es.= 9&, 4p. 8.7. Atts. 3en., +, *!.: 'his theor

$as also supported b ord 7to$ell in an opinion given b hi# to the British 3overn#ent as late as

&*)2. ;n the leading case of the 7chooner 6=change vs. Mcustice Marshall said that the i#plied license under $hich such vessels enter a friendl port

#a reasonabl be construed as =containing e1e#ption fro# the (urisdiction of the sovereign $ithin

$hose territor she clai#s the rights of hospitalit.= 'he principle $as accepted b the 3eneva

Arbitration 'ribunal, $hich announced that =the priviledge of e1territorialit accorded to vessels of

$ar has been ad#itted in the la$ of nations not as an absolute right, but solel as a proceeding

founded on the principle of courtes and #utual deference bet$een nations.=9) Moore, ;nt. a$ Gig., secs. )5) and )5 Hall, ;nt. a$, sec. 55 'alor, ;nt. a$, sec. )5+ 4rtolan,

Gip de la Mer, ). C.T.:

7uch vessels are therefore per#itted during ti#es of peace to co#e and go freel. ocal official

e1ercise but little control over their actions, and offenses co##itted b their cre$ are (usticiable b

their o$n officers acting under the la$s to $hich the pri#aril o$e allegiance. 'his li#itation upon

the general principle of territorial sovereignt is based entirel upon co#it and convenience, and

finds its (ustification in the fact that e1perience sho$s that such vessels are generall careful to

respect local la$s and regulation $hich are essential to the health, order, and $ell-being of the port.

But co#it and convenience does not re0uire the e1tension of the sa#e degree of e1e#ption to

#erchant vessels. 'here are t$o $ell-defined theories as to e1tent of the i##unities ordinaril

granted to the#, According to the


49/125

(urisdiction. 9&5 4p. Atts. 3en., 8. 7., &!* ) Moore, ;nt. a$ Gig., sec. )2 article b Gean

3regor, Mich. a$ Revie$, Jol. ;;, No. 5.: Chief >ustice Marshall, in the case of the 6=change, said

that

/hen #erchant vessels enter for the purpose of trade, in $ould be obviousl in convinient

and dangerous to societ and $ould sub(ect the la$s to continual infraction and the

govern#ent to degradation if such individual #erchants did not o$e te#porar and local

allegiance, and $ere not a#endable to the (urisdiction of the countr.

'he 7upre#e Court of the 8nited 7tates has recentl said that the #erchant vessels of one countr

visiting the ports of another for the purpose of trade, sub(ect the#selves to the la$s $hich govern

the ports the visit, so long as the re#ain and this as $ell in $ar as in peace, unless other$ise

provided b treat. 98. 7. vs. Gie"el#an, ) 8. 7., 5)2-5)5.:

Certain li#itations upon the (urisdiction of the local courts are i#posed b article & of the treat of

co##erce and navigation bet$een 7$eden and Nor$a and the 8nited 7tates, of >ul , &*)!,

$hich concedes to the consul, vice-consuls, or consular agents of each countr ='he right to sit as

(udges and arbitrators in such differences as #a arise bet$een the captains and cre$s of thevessels belonging to the nation $hose interests are co##itted to their charge, $ithout the

interference of the local authorities, unless the conduct of the cre$s or of the captains should disturb

the order or tran0uillit of the countr.= 9Co#p. of 'reaties in


50/125

controversies resulting fro# personal violence involving offense for $hich the part #a be

held a#enable under the local cri#inal la$.

'his 3overn#ent does not vie$ the article in 0uestion as susceptible of such broad

interpretation. 'he (urisdiction conferred upon the consuls is conceived to be li#ited to their

right to sit as (udges or abitratorsin such differences as may arise between captains and

crews of the vessels where such differences do not involve on the part of the captain or

crew a disturbance of the order or tranquillity of the country. /hen, ho$ever, a co#plaint is

#ade to a local #agistrate, either b the captain or one or #ore of the cre$ of the vessel,

involving the disturbance of the order or tran0uillit of the countr, it is co#petent for such

#agistrate to ta"e cogni6ance of the #atter in furtherance of the local la$s, and under such

circu#stances in the 8nited 7tates it beco#es a public dut $hich the (udge or #agistrate is

not at libert voluntaril to forego. ;n all such cases it #ust necessaril be left to the local

(udicial authorities $hether the procedure shall ta"e place in the 8nited 7tates or in 7$eden

to deter#ine if in fact there had been such disturbance of the local order and tran0uillit, and

if the co#plaint is supported b such proof as results in the conviction of the part accused,

to visit upon the offenders such punish#ent as #a be defined against the offense b the

#unicipal la$ of the place.= 9Moore, ;nt. a$ Gig., vol. ), p. &5.:

'he treat does not therefore deprive the local courts of (urisdiction over offenses co##itted on

board a #erchant vessel b one #e#ber of the cre$ against another $hich a#ount to a disturbance

of the order or tran0uillit of the countr, and a fair and reasonable construction of the language

re0uires un to hold that an violation of cri#inal la$s disturbs the order or tra0uillit of the countr.

'he offense $ith $hich the appellant is charged had nothing to so $ith an difference bet$een the

captain and the cre$. ;t $as a violation b the #aster of the cri#inal la$ of the countr into $hose

port he ca#e. /e thus find that neither b reason of the nationalit of the vessel, the place of the

co##ission of the offense, or the prohibitions of an treat or general principle of public la$, are the

court of the Philippine ;slands deprived of (urisdiction over the offense charged in the infor#ation in

this case.

;t is further contended that the co#plaint is defective because it does not allege that the ani#als

$ere dise#bar"ed at the port of Manila, an allegation $hich it is clai#ed is essential to the

(urisdiction of the court sitting at that port. 'o hold $ith the appellant upon this issue $ould be to

construe the language of the co#plaint ver strictl against the 3overn#ent. 'he dise#bar"ation of

the ani#als is not necessar in order to constitute the co#pleted offense, and a reasonable

construction of the language of the statute confers (urisdiction upon the court sitting at the port into

$hich the ani#als are bought. 'he are then $ithin the territorial (urisdiction of the court, and the

#ere fact of their dise#bar"ation is i##aterial so far as (urisdiction is concerned. 'his #ight be

different if the dise#bar"ation of the ani#als constituted a constitutional ele#ent in the offense, but it

does not.

;t is also contended that the infor#ation is insufficient because it fails to allege that the

defendant 5nowingly andwillfully failed to provide suitable #eans for securing said ani#als $hile in

transit, so as to avoid cruelt and unnecessar suffering. 'he allegation of the co#plaint that the act

$as co##itted $illfull includes the allegation that it $as co##itted "no$ingl. As said in

/oodhouse vs.Rio 3rande R.R. Co#pan 9+! 'e1as, &+:, =the $ord ?$illfull? carries the idea,

$hen used in connection $ith an act forbidden b la$, that the act #ust be done "no$ingl or

intentionall that, $ith "no$ledge, the $ill consented to, designed, and directed the act.= 7o in

/ongvs.Cit of Astoria 9& 4regon, 5*:, it $as said% ='he first one is that the co#plaint did not


51/125

sho$, in the $ords of the ordinance, that the appellant ?"no$ingl? did the act co#plained of. 'his

point, ; thin", $as full ans$ered b the respondent?s counsel that the $ords ?$illfull? and

?"no$ingl? conveed the sa#e #eaning. 'o ?$illfull? do an act i#plies that it $as done b design

done for a certain purpose and ; thin" that it $ould necessaril follo$ that it $as ?"no$ingl? done.=

'o the sa#e effect is 0ohnson vs. The People 9 ;ll., 525:, $hich see#s to be on all fours $ith the

present case.

'he evidence sho$s not onl that the defendant?s acts $ere "no$ingl done, but his defense rests

upon the assertion that =according to his e1perience, the sste# of carring cattle loose upon the

dec"s and in the hold is preferable and #ore secure to the life and co#fort of the ani#als.= ;t $as

conclusivel proven that $hat $as done $as done "no$ingl and intentionall.

;n charging an offense under section + of 3eneral 4rders, No. 5*, paragraph , it is onl necessar

to state the act or o#ission co#plained of as constituting a cri#e or public offense in ordinar and

concise language, $ithout repitition. *t need not necessarily be in the words of the statute, but it #ust

be in such for# as to enable a person of co##on understanding to "no$ $hat is intended and the

court to pronounce (udg#ent according to right. A co#plaint $hich co#plies $ith this re0uire#ent is

good. 98.7. vs.7arabia, Phil. Rep., 55+.:

'he Act, $hich is in the English language, i#pose upon the #aster of a vessel the dut to =provide

suitable #eans for securing such ani#als $hile in transit, so as to avoid all cruelt and unnecessar

suffering to the ani#als.= 'he allegation of the co#plaint as it reads in English is that the defendant

$illfull, unla$full, and $rongfull carried the cattle =$ithout providing suitable #eans for securing

said ani#als $hile in transit, so as to avoid cruelt and unnecessar suffering to the said ani#als in

this . . . that b reason of the aforesaid neglect and failure of the accused to provide suitable #eans

for securing said ani#als $ere cruelt torn, and #an of said ani#als $ere tossed about upon the

dec"s and hold of said vessels, and cruelt $ounded, bruised, and "illed.=

'he appellant contends that the language of the 7panish te1t of the infor#ation does not charge hi#

$ith failure to provide =sufficient= and =ade0uate= #eans. 'he $ords used are =medios suficientes=and =medios adecuados.= ;n vie$ of the fact that the original co#plaint $as prepared in English, and

that the $ord =suitable= is translatable b the $ords =adecuado,= =suficiente,= and =conveniente,=

according to the conte1t and circu#stances, $e deter#ine this point against the appellant,

particularl in vie$ of the fact that the ob(ection $as not #ade in the court belo$, and that the

evidence clearl sho$s a failure to provide =suitable #eans for the protection of the ani#als.=

). 'he appellant?s argu#ents against the constitutionalit of Act No. 55 and the a#end#ent thereto

see#s to rest upon a funda#entall erroneous conception of the constitutional la$ of these ;slands.

'he statute penali6es acts and o##issions incidental to the transportation of live stoc" bet$een

foreign ports and ports of the Philippine ;slands, and had a si#ilar statute regulating co##erce $ith

its ports been enacted b the legislature of one of the 7tates of the 8nion, it $ould doubtless have

been in violation of Article ;, section , of the Constitution of the 8nited 7tates. 97tubbs vs.People

9Colo.:, && . R. A., N. 7., &2!&.:

But the Philippine ;slands is not a 7tate, and its relation to the 8nited 7tates is controlled b

constitutional principles different fro# those $hich appl to 7tates of the 8nion. 'he i#portance of

the 0uestion thus presented re0uires a state#ent of the principles $hich govern those relations, and

consideration of the nature and e1tent of the legislative po$er of the Philippine Co##ission and the


52/125


53/125

on August &, &**, and the #ilitar co##ander $as directed to hold the cit, ba, and harbor,

pending the conclusion of a peace $hich should deter#ine the control, disposition, and govern#ent

of the ;slands. 'he dut then devolved upon the A#erican authorities to preserve peace and protect

person and propert $ithin the occupied territor. Provision therefor $as #ade b proper orders, and

on August )+ 3eneral Merritt assu#ed the duties of #ilitar governor. 'he treat of peace $as

signed Gece#ber &2, &**. 4n the ))d of Gece#ber, &**, the President announced that the

destruction of the 7panish fleet and the surrender of the cit had practicall effected the con0uest of

the Philippine ;slands and the suspension of the 7panish sovereignt therein, and that b the treat

of peace the future control, disposition, and govern#ent of the ;slands had been ceded to the 8nited

7tates. Guring the periods of strict #ilitar occupation, before the treat of peace $as ratified, and

the interi# thereafter, until Congress acted 97antiago vs. Noueral, )& 8.7., )+2:, the territor $as

governed under the #ilitar authorit of the President as co##ander in chief. ong before Congress

too" an action, the President organi6ed a civil govern#ent $hich, ho$ever, had its legal

(ustification, li"e the purel #ilitar govern#ent $hich it graduall superseded, in the $ar po$er. 'he

#ilitar po$er of the President e#braced legislative, e1ecutive personall, or through such #ilitar or

civil agents as he chose to select. As stated b 7ecretar Root in his report for &2&

'he #ilitar po$er in e1ercise in a territor under #ilitar occupation includes e1ecutive,legislative, and (udicial authorit. ;t not infre0uentl happens that in a single order of a #ilitar

co##ander can be found the e1ercise of all three of these different po$ers the e1ercise

of the legislative po$ers b provisions prescribing a rule of action of (udicial po$er b

deter#ination of right and the e1ecutive po$er b the enforce#ent of the rules prescribed

and the rights deter#ined.

President McDinle desired to transfor# #ilitar into civil govern#ent as rapidl as conditions $ould

per#it. After full investigation, the organi6ation of civil govern#ent $as initiated b the appoint#ent

of a co##ission to $hich civil authorit $as to be graduall transferred. 4n 7epte#ber &, &22, the

authorit to e1ercise, sub(ect to the approval of the President. =that part of the #ilitar po$er of the

President in the Philippine ;slands $hich is legislative in its character= $as transferred fro# the

#ilitar govern#ent to the Co##ission, to be e1ercised under such rules and regulations as shouldbe prescribed b the 7ecretar of /ar, until such ti#e as co#plete civil govern#ent should be

established, or congress other$ise provided. 'he legislative po$er thus conferred upon the

Co##ission $as declared to include =the #a"ing of rules and orders having the effect of la$ for the

raising of revenue b ta1es, custo#s duties, and i#posts the appropriation and e1penditure of

public funds of the ;slands the establish#ent of an educational sste# to secure an efficient civil

service the organi6ation and establish#ent of courts the organi6ation and establish#ent of

#unicipal and depart#ental govern#ent, and all other #atters of a civil nature $hich the #ilitar

governor is no$ co#petent to provide b rules or orders of a legislative character.= 'his grant of

legislative po$er to the Co##ission $as to be e1ercised in confor#it $ith certain declared general

principles, and sub(ect to certain specific rest

Documents

Cases in Crim Law