GARCIA v.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. No. 198554
July 30, 2012
677 SCRA 750

FACTS: Garcia, tried by the Special General Court Martial NR 2, was

charged with and convicted of violation of the 96th Article of War
(Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman) and violation of the
97th Article of War (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military
Discipline) for failing to disclose all his assets in his Sworn Statement of
Assets and Liabilities and Net worth for the year 2003 as required by RA
3019, as amended in relation to RA 6713.

Garcia, among others, argued that the confirmation issued by the OP

directing his two-year detention in a penitentiary had already been fully
served following his preventive confinement subject to Article 29 of the
RPC (Revised Penal Code). He was released on December 16, 2010 after
a preventive confinement for six years and two months. He was initially
confined at his quarters at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo before he was
transferred to the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (ISAFP) Detention Center, and latter to the Camp Crame
Custodial Detention Center.

Hence, on September 16, 2011, or a week after the OP confirmed the

sentence of the court martial against him, Garcia was arrested and
detained and continues to be detained, for 2 years, at the maximum
security compound of the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. The OP
stated that Art 29 of the RPC is not applicable in Military Courts for it is
separate and distinct from ordinary courts.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: (1) Whether or not Article 29 of the RPC is applicable in Military

Courts; and (2) Whether or not the application of Article 29 of the RPC in
the Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of
the 1987 Constitution

RULING: (1) The Court ruled that applying the provisions of Article 29 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Period of preventive imprisonment
deducted from time of imprisonment), the time within which the
petitioner was under preventive confinement should be credited to the
sentence confirmed by the Office of the President, subject to the
conditions set forth by the same law.

The Court held that “the General Court Martial is a court within the
strictest sense of the word and acts as a criminal court.” As such, certain
provisions of the RPC, insofar as those that are not provided in the
Articles of War and the Manual for Courts-Martial, can be supplementary.
“[A]bsent any provision as to the application of a criminal concept in the
implementation and execution of the General Court Martial’s decision, the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 29 should be
applied. In fact, the deduction of petitioner’s (Garcia) period of
confinement to his sentence has been recommended in the Staff Judge
Advocate Review.”

(2) The Court further held that the application of Article 29 of the RPC in
the Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of
the 1987 Constitution. “The concept of equal justice under the law
requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions
between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a
legitimate governmental objective.

It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all
persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality
among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed,
the equal protection clause permits classification,” held the Court.