COMMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA [200 SCRA 80; G.R. NO.

93177; 2 AUG
1991]
Thursday, February 12, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 who are
officers of the AFP were directed to appear in person before the
PreTria! "n#esti$atin$ %fficers for the a!!e$ed participation the
fai!ed co&p on 'ece(ber 1 to 9) 1989. Petitioners now c!ai( that
there was no pretria! in#esti$ation of the char$es as (andated
b* Artic!e of +ar 71. A (otion for dis(issa! was denied. Now)
their (otion for reconsideration. A!!e$in$ denia! of d&e process.
"n G.R. No. 9,-.-) /tc 0acinto /i$ot app!ied for bai! on 0&ne ,)
199-) b&t the app!ication was denied b* G12 No.14. 3e fi!ed with
the RT1 a petition for certiorari and (anda(&s with pra*er for
pro#isiona! !ibert* and a writ of pre!i(inar* in4&nction. 0&d$e of
G12 then $ranted the pro#isiona! !ibert*. 3owe#er he was not
re!eased i((ediate!*. The RT1 now dec!ared that e#en (i!itar*
(en facin$ co&rt (artia! proceedin$s can a#ai! the ri$ht to bai!.
The pri#ate respondents in G.R. No. 974,4 fi!ed with 51 a petition
for habeas corp&s on the $ro&nd that the* were bein$ detained in
1a(p 1ra(e witho&t char$es. The petition was referred to RT1.
Findin$ after hearin$ that no for(a! char$es had been fi!ed
a$ainst the petitioners after (ore than a *ear after their arrest)
the tria! co&rt ordered their re!ease.
Issues:
617 +hether or Not there was a denia! of d&e process.
6.7 +hether or not there was a #io!ation of the acc&sed ri$ht to
bai!.
Held: N% denia! of d&e process. Petitioners were $i#en se#era!
opport&nities to present their side at the pretria! in#esti$ation)
first at the sched&!ed hearin$ of Febr&ar* 1.) 199-) and then
a$ain after the denia! of their (otion of Febr&ar* .1) 199-) when
the* were $i#en &nti! 2arch 7) 199-) to s&b(it their co&nter
affida#its. %n that date) the* fi!ed instead a #erba! (otion for
reconsideration which the* were a$ain as8ed to s&b(it in writin$.
The* had been e9press!* warned in the s&bpoena that :fai!&re to
s&b(it co&nteraffida#its on the date specified sha!! be dee(ed a
wai#er of their ri$ht to s&b(it contro#ertin$ e#idence.:
Petitioners ha#e a ri$ht to pree(ptor* cha!!en$e. 6Ri$ht to
cha!!en$e #a!idit* of (e(bers of G;5127
"t is ar$&ed that since the pri#ate respondents are officers of the
Ar(ed Forces acc&sed of #io!ations of the Artic!es of +ar) the
respondent co&rts ha#e no a&thorit* to order their re!ease and
otherwise interfere with the co&rt(artia! proceedin$s. This is
witho&t (erit. < The Re$iona! Tria! 1o&rt has conc&rrent
4&risdiction with the 1o&rt of Appea!s and the 5&pre(e 1o&rt o#er
petitions for certiorari) prohibition or (anda(&s a$ainst inferior
co&rts and other bodies and on petitions for habeas corp&s and
=&o warranto.
The ri$ht to bai! in#o8ed b* the pri#ate respondents has
traditiona!!* not been reco$ni>ed and is not a#ai!ab!e in the
(i!itar*) as an e9ception to the $enera! r&!e e(bodied in the ?i!!
of Ri$hts. The ri$ht to a speed* tria! is $i#en (ore e(phasis in
the (i!itar* where the ri$ht to bai! does not e9ist.
%n the contention that the* had not been char$ed after (ore
than one *ear fro( their arrest) there was s&bstantia! co(p!iance
with the re=&ire(ents of d&e process and the ri$ht to a speed*
tria!. The AFP 5pecia! "n#esti$atin$ 1o((ittee was ab!e to
co(p!ete the prechar$e in#esti$ation on!* after one *ear
beca&se h&ndreds of officers and tho&sands of en!isted (en were
in#o!#ed in the fai!ed co&p.
Accordin$!*) in G.R. No. 93177) the petition is dis(issed for !ac8
of (erit. "n G.R. No. 96948) the petition is $ranted) and the
respondents are directed to a!!ow the petitioners to e9ercise the
ri$ht of pere(ptor* cha!!en$e &nder artic!e 18 of the artic!es of
war. "n G.R. Nos. 9,-.- and 974,4) the petitions are a!so
$ranted) and the orders of the respondent co&rts for the re!ease
of the pri#ate respondents are hereb* re#ersed and set aside. No
costs.