THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 223272, February 26, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, SSGT. EDGARDO L. OSORIO, Petitioner, v. ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR JUAN PEDRO C. NAVERA; ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR IRWIN A. MARAYA; ASSOCIATE PROSECUTION ATTORNEY ETHEL RHEA G. SURIL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MANILA; COLONEL ROBERT M. AREVALO, COMMANDER, HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT GROUP PHILIPPINE ARMY; COLONEL ROSALIO G. POMPA, INF (GSC), PA, COMMANDING OFFICER, MP BATALLION, HHSG, PA; AND CAPTAIN TELESFORO C. BALASABAS, INF PA, AND/OR ANY AND ALL PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY OVER THE PERSON OF SSGT. EDGARDO L. OSORIO, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Kidnapping should never be part of the functions of a soldier. It cannot be done in a soldier's official capacity. If a soldier nonetheless proceeds allegedly on the orders of a superior officer, the soldier shall be tried before the civil courts. The remedy of habeas corpus, on the argument that only courts-martial have jurisdiction over members of the Armed Forces, will not lie.
This resolves the Petition1 for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141332 dated July 27, 20152 and February 22, 2016.3 The Court of Appeals found that custody over Staff Sergeant Edgardo L. Osorio (SSgt. Osorio) was by virtue of a valid judicial process; thus, it denied SSgt. Osorio's Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus.4
Together with his superior officer, Major General Jovito Palparan (Major General Palparan),5 SSgt. Osorio was charged in two (2) Informations before Branch 14, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City for allegedly kidnapping University of the Philippines students Karen E. Empeño (Empeño) and Sherlyn T. Cadapan (Cadapan). The accusatory portion of these Informations read:
CRIM. CASE NO. 3905-M-2011
That on or about the 26th of June 2006, in the house of one Raquel Halili at Barangay San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, acting as private individuals, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there, by taking advantage of nighttime and with the use of a motor vehicle, forcibly abduct KAREN E. EMPEÑO, a female person, and deprive her of liberty by detaining her against her will first at Camp Tecson, in San Miguel, Bulacan, then subsequently in other places to include the barangay hall of Sapang, San Miguel, Bulacan; the camp of the 24th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army in Limay, Bataan; and, a resort/safehouse in Iba, Zambales, from June 2006 to July 2007, a period of more than three (3) days, resulting in the said female victim's continuing disappearance, to the damage and prejudice of KAREN E. EMPEÑO and her heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 (Emphasis in the original)CRIM. CASE NO. 3906-M-2011
That on or about the 26th of June 2006, in the house of one Raquel Halili at Barangay San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, acting as private individuals, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there, by taking advantage of nighttime and with the use of a motor vehicle, forcibly abduct SHERLYN T. CADAPAN, a female person, and deprive her of liberty by detaining her against her will first at Camp Tecson, in San Miguel, Bulacan, then subsequently in other places to include the barangay hall of Sapang, San Miguel, Bulacan; the camp of the 24th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army in Limay, Bataan; and, a resort/safehouse in Iba, Zambales, from June 2006 to July 2007, a period of more than three (3) days, resulting in the said female victim's continuing disappearance, to the damage and prejudice of SHERLYN T. CADAPAN and her heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7 (Emphasis in the original)
Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends. — Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. — If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:With a motion to quash, the accused "assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information ... for insufficiency on its face in [a] point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information."46 An accused filing a motion to quash "hypothetically admits the facts alleged in the information" and cannot present evidence aliunde or those extrinsic from the Information.47
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Section 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinances regardless of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court except when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended.
In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court-martial may take into consideration the penalty prescribed therefor in the Revised Penal Code, other special laws, or local government ordinances.
ARTICLE 54. Fraudulent Enlistment ...
ARTICLE 55. Officer Making Unlawful Enlistment ...
ARTICLE 56. False Muster ...
ARTICLE 57. False Returns-Omission to Render Returns ...
ARTICLE 58. Certain Acts to Constitute Desertion ...
ARTICLE 59. Desertion ...
ARTICLE 60. Advising or Aiding Another to Desert ...
ARTICLE 61. Entertaining a Deserter ...
ARTICLE 62. Absence Without Leave ...
ARTICLE 63. Disrespect toward the President, Vice-President, Congress of the Philippines, or Secretary of National Defense ...
ARTICLE 64. Disrespect Toward Superior Officer ...
ARTICLE 65. Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer ...
ARTICLE 66. Insubordinate Conduct Toward Non-Commissioned Officer ...
ARTICLE 67. Mutiny or Sedition ...
ARTICLE 68. Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition ...
ARTICLE 69. Quarrels; Frays; Disorders ...
ARTICLE 70. Arrest or Confinement ...
ARTICLE 72. Refusal to Receive and Keep Prisoners ...
ARTICLE 73. Report of Prisoners Received ...
ARTICLE 74. Releasing Prisoner Without Proper Authority ...
ARTICLE 75. Delivery of Offenders to Civil Authorities ...
ARTICLE 76. Misbehaviour Before the Enemy ...
ARTICLE 77. Subordinates Compelling Commander to Surrender ...
ARTICLE 78. Improper Use of Countersign ...
ARTICLE 79. Forcing a Safeguard ...
ARTICLE 80. Captured Property to Be Secured for Public Service ...
ARTICLE 81. Dealing in Captured or Abandoned Property ...
ARTICLE 82. Relieving, Corresponding with, or Aiding the Enemy ...
ARTICLE 83. Spies ...
ARTICLE 84. Military Property — Willful or Negligent Loss, Damage or Wrongful Disposition ...
ARTICLE 85. Waste or Unlawful Disposition of Military Property Issued to Soldiers ...
ARTICLE 86. Drunk on Duty ...
ARTICLE 87. Misbehaviour of Sentinel ...
ARTICLE 88. Personal Interest in Sale of Provisions ...
ARTICLE 89. Intimidation of Persons Bringing Provisions ...
ARTICLE 90. Good Order to be Maintained and Wrongs Redressed ...
ARTICLE 91. Provoking Speeches or Gestures ...
ARTICLE 92. Dueling ...
....
ARTICLE 95. Frauds Against the Government Affecting Matters and Equipments ...
ARTICLE 96. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman ...
ARTICLE 97. General Article ...
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 10-37.
2 Id. at 38-43. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda of the Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 44-46. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda of the Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 43 and 45.
5 Id. at 97 and 101. SSgt. Osorio's other co-accused were Lieutenant Colonel Felipe Anotado, Jr. and Master Sergeant Rizal C. Hilario.
6 Id. at 98.
7 Id. at 102.
8 Id. at 47-48.
9 Id. at 12, as admitted in the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
10 Id. at 49-74.
11 Id. at 49.
12 Id. at 55-60.
13 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 267 provides:
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
14Rollo, pp. 53-54.
15 Id. at 65-66.
16 Id. at 41.
17 Comm. Act No. 408.
18Rollo, p. 43.
19 Id. at 38-43.
20 Id. at 44-46.
21 Id. at 10-37.
22 Id. at 145-173.
23 Id. at 14-17.
24 Id. at 17-25.
25 Id. at 27-28.
26 Id. at 148-153.
27 Id. at 153-166.
28 Id. at 167.
29 Id.
30Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, 206 Phil. 466, 495 (1983) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., En Banc].
31Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 788 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
32De Villa v. Director, New Bililbid Prisons, 485 Phil. 368, 381 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc]; Calvan v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 133, 144 (2000) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
33Mangila v. Pangilinan, 714 Phil. 204, 209 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division], citing Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 492 Phil. 410, 422 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]; Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz, etc., 105 Phil. 315, 320-321 (1959) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc], citing 25 Am. Jur., p. 245.
34Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 789 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
35 Id. at 790.
36 See Gumabon, et al. v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc], Conde v. Rivera and Unson, 45 Phil. 650 (1924) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc], and Ganaway v. Quillen, 42 Phil. 805 (1922) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
37Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc]; Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
38 757 Phil. 630, 644-645 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
39 CONST., art. III, sec. 1 provides:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
40See Gumabon, et al. v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
41See In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Villar v. Director Bugarin, 224 Phil. 161, 170 (1985) [Per C.J. Makasiar, En Banc], Celeste v. People, 142 Phil. 308, 312 (1970) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc], Santiago v. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 927, 930-931 (1947) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc], Quintos v. Director of Prisons, 55 Phil. 304, 306 (1930) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc], and Carrington v. Peterson, 4 Phil. 134, 138 (1905) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc].
42In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Harvey v. Hon. Santiago, 245 Phil. 809, 816 (1988) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, Second Division], citing Cruz v. Gen. Montoya, 159 Phil. 601, 604-605 (1975) [Per J. Fernando, Second Division].
43Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561, 580 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc]; In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Harvey v. Hon. Santiago, 245 Phil. 809, 816 (1988) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, Second Division], citing Beltran v. P.C. Capt. Garcia, 178 Phil. 590, 594 (1979) [Per Acting C.J. Fernando, En Banc].
44Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 492 Phil. 410, 422 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
45Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561, 577 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc]; Bernarte v. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 643, 657 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
46In re Salibo v. Warden, 757 Phil. 630, 653 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing People v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013, 701 SCRA 506, 512 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, sec. 4.
50 RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, sec. 4.
51 Entitled "An Act Strengthening Civilian Supremacy Over the Military Returning to the Civil Courts the Jurisdiction Over Certain Offenses Involving Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Other Persons Subject to Military Law, and the Members of the Philippine National Police, Repealing for the Purpose Certain Presidential Decrees."
52 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 267 provides:
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
53 B.P. Blg. 129, sec. 20 in relation to sec. 32.
54 359 Phil. 928 (1998) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].
55 Id. at 943.
56 676 Phil. 420 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
57 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, as amended, sec. 4(b).
58See Salibo v. Warden, 757 Phil. 630 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
59 RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, secs. 1 and 3 provide:
Section 1. Time to move to quash. — At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.
....
Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
....
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so[.]