G.R. No. 96607. March 04, 1992
PATROLMAN OSCAR QUILONA, PETITIONER, VS. THE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL (ARRO COURT) AND/OR BRIGADIER GENERAL REGINO ARRO, P/MAJOR CESAR CAYABYAB, P/MAJOR ROBERTO SANGGALANG, P/MAJOR…
PADILLA, J.:
The petitioner, a policeman assigned at the Western Police
District (WPD), was charged before respondent General Court Martial with the
crime of murder on two (2) counts, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code. The case is entitled “People
of the Philippines vs. Patrolman Oscar Quiloña.”
On 14 December 1990, petitioner, through counsel, wrote a letter[1]
to President Corazon C. Aquino, expressing his desire to be tried by a civilian court and sought a waiver
of military jurisdiction, for the reason, among others, that the
“enactment of the Philippine National Police Law creates his honest belief
that he should now be under the actual and real jurisdiction of a civilian court.”
At the scheduled arraignment on 15 December 1990, petitioner’s
counsel manifested to respondent General Court Martial his client’s desire not
to be arraigned and to be tried by a civilian court, furnishing respondent
court martial a copy of petitioner’s letter to the President. The petitioner’s arraignment was reset.
At the next scheduled arraignment of petitioner on 28 December
1990, the petitioner filed a pleading denominated as “MOTION FOR THIS HONORABLE
COURT MARTIAL TO INHIBIT ITSELF FROM PURSUING THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE ACCUSED
AND TO HAVE HIS CASE INVESTIGATED BY THE CIVILIAN PROSECUTOR OR AT LEAST TRIED
BY A CIVILIAN COURT”.[2]
Although set for oral argument on 3 January 1991, respondent court decided to
have the motion argued on the day it was filed – 28 December 1990. And after a ten-minute closed-door
deliberation among the members of respondent court martial, it resumed session
where it denied the petitioner’s aforesaid motion. Petitioner, through counsel, moved for a reconsideration and
asked that he be allowed to file his arguments on the next day. Respondent court, however, denied the motion
and proceeded to read the charges and specifications to petitioner. Petitioner refused to enter a plea and
manifested that he would elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, respondent court ordered the
entry of a “Plea of Not Guilty” and set the trial of the case to 25
January 1991.[3]
Petitioner has filed this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, alleging that
respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion for
inhibition and that there is no appeal, nor any other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except thru the present petition,
and praying that -?
“x x x a writ of certiorari be issued, ordering the
proceedings herein complained of to be certified forthwith for review and a
writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order be issued by
this Honorable Supreme Court to prevent the respondent from trying the accused
(petitioner) for the protection of his rights pending the resolution of this
petition, and after due hearing, let judgment be rendered annulling the arraignment
of the accused and/or annulling the proceedings taken by respondents on
December 18, 1990 as the law requires, prohibiting respondents from trying
petitioner.”[4]
Acting upon the petition, the Court on 17 January 1991 resolved
to implead the People of the Philippines as party respondent and require the
Solicitor General to comment on the petition.[5]
On 19 February 1991, petitioner filed with this Court an URGENT
EX-PARTE MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A RESTRAINING ORDER[6]
alleging, among others, that “the respondent court martial and the members
thereof are insistent on trying the accused and have scheduled the hearing on
22nd of February 1991” and that “only a restraining order of this
Honorable Court will stop them from proceeding with the trial of petitioner.”
As prayed for by petitioner, the Court issued on 21 February 1991
a temporary restraining order,[7]
directing the respondents to CEASE and DESIST from trying and/or proceeding
with the trial of the petitioner.
On 21 May 1991, the Solicitor General filed his comment[8]
on the petition, recommending that the same be given due course.
Acting on the petition as well as the comment of the Solicitor
General, the Court resolved to (1) treat the respondents’ comment as answer to
the petition; (2) give due course to the petition; and (3) consider this case
calendared for deliberation.[9]
Hence, this decision.
The petition is meritorious.
Republic Act No. 6975,[10]
creating the Philippine National Police (PNP),[11]
which took effect on 1 January 1991,[12]
provides:
“SEC. 46. Jurisdiction
in Criminal Cases. – Any
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP
members shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts; Provided,
That the courts-martial appointed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1850
shall continue to try PC-INP members who have already been arraigned, to
include appropriate actions thereon by the reviewing authorities pursuant to
Commonwealth Act No. 408, otherwise known as the Articles of War, as amended by
Executive Order No. 178, otherwise known as the Manual for Courts-Martial: Provided, further, that criminal
cases against PC-INP members who may have not yet been arraigned upon the
effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial
prosecutor or municipal trial court judge.” (Emphasis supplied)
At this juncture, it will be recalled that on 28 December 1990,
the petitioner filed a motion to inhibit respondent court martial from
proceeding with his arraignment and that his case be investigated by a civilian
prosecutor or tried by a civilian court. Although the said motion was set by petitioner-movant for oral argument
on 3 January 1991, respondent court martial decided to have it argued on 28
December 1990 — the very day it was filed. And after a ten-minute closed-door deliberation among the members
thereof, it resumed session where it denied the petitioner’s motion. Thereafter, it proceeded to read the charges
and specifications to petitioner. Notwithstanding the petitioner’s refusal to enter a plea, respondent
court martial entered for him a “Plea
of Not Guilty” and set the trial of the case on 25 January 1991.
Although Republic Act No. 6975 was not yet in effect when
petitioner was arraigned on 28 December 1990, nevertheless, respondent court
martial knew or should have known that the said Act had already been signed or
approved by the President on 13 December 1990 and that the same was published
in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation on 17 December 1990 and
that it would take effect on 1 January 1991. It is precisely for this reason that respondent court martial decided
to have the petitioner’s motion to inhibit argued on 28 December 1990 and
thereafter arraigned the petitioner on the same day despite his vehement
refusal to enter a plea.
Clearly, under the circumstances obtaining in the present case,
respondent court martial acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in proceeding with the arraignment of the petitioner
on 28 December 1990.
Moreover, as correctly
pointed out by the Solicitor General in his comment —
“Section 46 should be read in the
light of the policy of the State declared under Section 2 of the act, which
says:
‘SEC. 2. Declaration of
Policy. It is hereby declared to be
the policy of the State to promote peace and order, ensure public safety and
further strengthen local government capability aimed towards the effective
delivery of the basic services to the citizenry through the establishment of a highly
efficient and competent police force that is national in scope and civilian
in character. Towards
this end, the State shall bolster a system of coordination and cooperation
among the citizenry, local executives and the integrated law enforcement and public
safety agencies created under this Act.
‘The police force shall be organized, trained and equipped
primarily for the performance of police functions. Its national scope and civilian character
shall be paramount. No element of the police force shall be military nor shall any position
thereof he occupied by active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.’
“The civilian character with which the PNP is expressly
invested is declared by RA 6975 as paramount, and, in line therewith, the law
mandates the transfer of criminal cases against its members to civilian courts.
x x x
“By closing its eyes to the provisions of Sections 2 and 46,
indelicately asserting its military jurisdiction rather than letting go of the
case to civilian jurisdiction to effectuate and give flesh to the avowed policy
and intent of the law, respondent Court
committed grave abuse of discretion.”
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED; the proceedings held on 28 December 1990 before
respondents are declared NULL and VOID. The respondent court martial is hereby ORDERED to TRANSFER the subject
criminal case against the petitioner to the appropriate city or provincial
prosecutor for expeditious action. The
temporary restraining order heretofore issued by the Court is hereby made
permanent.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Nocon, JJ., concur.
[1]
Annex “G”, Rollo, p. 18
[2]
Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 13
[3]
Annex “A”, Rollo, p. 7
[4]
Rollo, p. 5
[5]
Ibid., p. 26
[6]
Ibid., pp. 26
[7]
Ibid., p. 29-30
[8]
Ibid., p. 59
[9]
Ibid., p. 58
[10]
Approved by the President on 13 December 1990.
[11]
Sec. 23 of RA No. 6975 provides: “Subject to the limitations provided for in this Act, the
Philippine National Police, hereinafter referred to as the PNP, is hereby
established, initially consisting of the members of the police force who were
integrated into the Integrated National Police (INP) pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 765, and the officers and enlisted personnel of the Philippine
Constabulary (PC). x x x.”
[12]
Sec. 96 of RA No. 6975 provides: “This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its
publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. RA No. 6975 was published in “The
Philippine Star” and “Times Journal” on 17 December 1990.