Elepante vs.

Madayag 196 SCRA 399 (1991)

GR 93559

Facts:

On April 15, 1990, at around 3AM, Major Romeo Elepante of the Philippine Navy
(Marines) was awakened at his house by a platoon of armed soldiers led by
Captain Doctor, informing him that he was invited by the Intelligence Service of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines to the NCR Defence Command, where he
was subsequently detained. On May 11, 1990, he filed a petition for habeas
corpus.

On May 15, the Court resolved to issue a writ returnable to the Judge Madayag
Executive Judge of the RTC of Makati, to hear and decide the case. The case
was heard with the conformity of the parties’ lawyers.

In the hearing on Mary 24, 1990, Maj. Elepante claims that there was no warrant
for his arrest. He was investigated for 5 days, and confined as prisoner at Fort
Bonifacio without any formal charges filed against him. Except for a photocopy
of an order of arrest and confinement dated April 14, 1990 issued by Col. Jorge
Agcaoili, Adjutant General of the AFP, no other documentary or testimonial
evidence were presented in this case.

The RTC dismissed the petition for habeas corpus for lack of merit.

It also opined that Maj. Elepante was arrested because of his involvement in
several coup attempts. Article 70 of the Articles of War provides that it is the
Chief of Staff of the AFP who can order his release

The court also cited that military procedure does not require a formal charge to
be filed before a military officer may be arrested and confined on orders of his
commanding officer.

Issue:

Whether or not the court erred in dismissing the appeal for habeas corpus.

Held:

NO, the court did not err in dismissing the appeal for habeas corpus. Section 18
of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, explicitly provides, viz:
Appeal in habeas corpus cases, how taken. — An appeal in habeas corpus
cases shall be perfected by filing with the clerk of the court or the judge who
rendered the judgment, within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of such
judgment, a statement that the person making it appeals therefrom.

To perfect an appeal, a notice of appeal is required to be filed with the Clerk of

Court or Judge who rendered the judgment (Rule 41, Section 18, Revised Rules
of Court). In computing the forty-eight (48) hour period of appeal, the date on
which the decision was promulgated and/or served is not counted and the
period starts to run the following day unless the same by a Sunday or legal
holiday in which case the period of appeal is to be considered from the
succeeding day.

In the case at bar, counsel for petitioner received on May 29, 1990 a copy of the
trial court’s decision dated May 24, 1990. Clearly when he filed the instant
petition on June 11, 1990, thirteen (13) days had lapsed, so it was filed outside
the forty-eight (48) hour reglementary period. This being so, the decision sought
to be reviewed is already final so that the Court has no alternative but to dismiss
the instant petition.