Right to Bail- Comendador vs de Villa

Comendador vs. De Villa (as chief of staff of the AFP) – Right to bail of Military Personnel

appeal to be taken.” Then the RTC ruled that the right to bail covers military men facing court-martial proceedings

Facts:

Issues:

• The case involves 4 consolidated cases of the officers of  the AFP who are facing prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup d’ etat on December 1-9, 1989:

•

G.R. G.R. No. No. 9317 93177 7-petiti -petition on for certio certiorar rari, i, prohib prohibiti ition, on, mandamusmandamus- questioning questioning the conduct conduct of  the pre-trial panel and the creation of General Court Martial (GMC No. 14) G.R. No. 96948-certi 96948-certiorari orari against the ruling ruling denying denying them the right to pre-emptory challenge (or that the Members of general or special courts-martial may be challenged by the accused or the trial judge advocate for cause stated to the court. The court shall determine the relevancy and validity thereof.) G.R. G.R. No. No. 9502 95020 0-certi -certiora orariri- agains againstt the respon responden dentt  judge on the ground that he has no jurisdiction of GCM No. 14 and no authority to set aside its ruling of denying bail to private respondents G.R. No. 97454-certiorari97454-certiorari- against the decision of RTC in a petition for habeas corpus directing the release of the private respondents. respondents. Jurisdictional objection are also raised. • Char Charge ges s agai agains nstt them them inc inclu lude de mut mutin iny, y, con condu duct ct unb unbec ecom omin ing g an officer and a gentleman, and various crimes in relation to murder  • The The prepre-tr trai aill inve invest stig igat atio ion n (PTI (PTI)) pane panell issu issued ed sev sever eral al let lette ters rs of  of  notice to the petitioners for counter-affidavit and of the affidavits of  their witnesses. witnesses. All were moved to delay and the petitioners petitioners contend that there was no pre-trail investigation done • In G.R. G.R. No. No. 950 95020 20,, Ltc. Ltc. Jaci Jacint nto o Lig Ligot ot appl applie ied d for for bail bail and and itit was was denied by GMC No. 14. The RTC granted him provisional liberty but he was not released immediately, “pending the final resolution of the

Whe Whethe ther the there re was was vio viollatio ation n of of due due proce rocess ss

• Whet Whethe herr or not not the the mil milit itar ary y pers person onne nell are are enti entitl tled ed to to bail bail,, thus thus,, WON there was a violation of the right to bail

Held: • The The peti petiti tion one ers in in G.R. G.R. Nos Nos.. 9317 93177 7 and and 9694 96948 8 were were giv given en several opportunities to be heard when they were asked to submit their counter-affidavits to the PTI. They cannot claim that they were denied due process. “Failure to submit the aforementioned counteraffidavits on the date above specified shall be deemed a waiver of  (their) right to submit controverting evidence." • "eve "even n a fail failur ure e to con conduct duct a prepre-tr tria iall inve invest stig iga ation tion doe does s not not deprive a general court- martial of jurisdiction." • “We f ind t hat the ri r ight to bail invo invoke ked d by the the priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nts s in G.R. G.R. Nos. Nos. 9502 95020 0 has has tradit traditiona ionally lly not been been recognized and is not available in the military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights.” • Howe Howeve ver, r, a righ rightt to spee speedy dy tria triall is is give given n more more emph emphas asis is in in the the military, where the right to bail does not exist. •

Soli Solici cito torr Gen Gener eral al’s ’s expl explan anat atio ion n of of the the exce except ptio ion: n:

• “The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military military men from the constitutional constitutional coverage on the right to bail.” “…soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system, are allowe allowed d the fiduciary fiduciary use of firear firearms ms by the govern governmen mentt for the

discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of  revenues collected from the people.” “…the truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their  heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities,” • Neither does it violate equal protection because the military is not similarly situated with others. •

Dispositive part of the case:

• “As in that case, we find that the respondents in G.R. No. 93177 have not acted with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of jurisdiction to justify the intervention of the Court and the reversal of the acts complained of by the petitioners. Such action is indicated, however, in G.R. No. 96948, where we find that the right to peremptory challenge should not have been denied, and in G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, where the private respondents should not have been ordered released.” • “ACCORDINGLY, in G.R. No. 93177, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. In G.R. No. 96948, the petition is GRANTED, and the respondents are DIRECTED to allow the petitioners to exercise the right of peremptory challenge under Article 18 of the Articles of War. In G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, the petitions are also GRANTED, and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.”