Criminal Law 1

FERDINAND E. MARCOS and MANUEL CONCORDIA finality and conclusiveness as to the issues involved which
(petitioners) v. CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE attend the judgements of a civil court in a case of which it
PHILIPPINES, ET AL. (respondents) may legally take cognizance.

G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951
FERDINAND E. MARCOS and MANUEL CONCORDIA
(petitioners) v. CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL. (respondents)
6. Restricting our decision to the above question of double
jeopardy, the plaintiff in error, having been acquitted of
the crime of homicide, could not be subsequently tried for
the same offense in civil court exercising authority in that
territory.

G.R. No. L-4671 May 30, 1951 7. In Section 17, it is obvious that the reason of prohibiting
appearance of members of the Senate/House of
OVERVIEW:
Representatives as counsel for the accused in court-
martials, as for inhibiting them to appear as such in civil
These are two (2) special civil actions of mandamus
courts, because the independence of civil courts’ judges is
(judicial writ issued as a command to a lower court.)
guaranteed by our constitution.
instituted by the same petitioners against the respondents
General Court-Martials composed each of different
8. Ubi Eadem Ibi Eadem Lex. Where there is the same
members or officers of the Philippine Army.
reason, there is the same law.
FACTS:
9. A court-martial is strictly a criminal court. It has no civil
jurisdiction; cannot enforce a contract, collect a debt or
1. It is alleged that the AFP Military Tribunals unlawfully award damages in favour of an individual.
excluded Marcos and Concordia from their right to appear
10. Judgement is a criminal sentence, not a civil verdict.
as counsel on the grounds that they are
disqualified/exempted/inhibited from Section 17, Article 11. A court-martial is a lawful tribunal existing by the same
17 of the Constitution, which reads: authority that any other exists by, and the military law is a
branch of law as valid as the others, it differs from other
No Senator or Member of the House of
laws only because it applies to officers and soldiers but not
Representatives shall directly or indirectly be
to other members of the body politic, it is limited to
financially interested in any contract with the
beaches of military duty.
Government or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the Congress during
his term of office.

2. He shall not appear as counsel before the Electoral

Tribunals or before any court in any civil case wherein an
officer or employee of the Government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office.

ISSUE: WON the prohibition contained in the Section 17,

Article 17 of the Philippine Constitution is applicable to the
petitioners.

HELD: YES

RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. Ferdinand E. Marcos and Manuel Concordia are

disqualified to appear as counsel for the accused in court-
martials. AFP did not unlawfully exclude their rights.
Hence, Petitions for mandamus are denied with costs.

2. Marcos/Concordia: Applicable, because the words “any

court” includes the General Court-Martial, and a court
martial case is a criminal case within the meaning of the
meaning of the above quoted provisions of our
constitution.

3. General meaning must prevail over restricted meaning

UNLESS the nature of the subject matter clearly indicates
that limited sense is intended.

4. It would be a bar to another prosecution for the same

case which would result to DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

5. “If a court-martial has jurisdiction to try an officer or

soldier for a crime, its judgement will be accorded to the