(Poli) Drilon v. CA

DRILON V.
CA
G.R. No. 91626
October 3, 1991
FACTS:
The Department of Justice has brought suit to annul the CA decision prohibiting
the Government from pursuing criminal actions against the private respondents
for the death of Ireneo Longno and Lonely Chavez during early martial law.
In 1973, the private respondents PAREDES and GANZON were charged with
double murder before Military Commission No. 34. The military promulgated a
decision acquitting PAREDES but sentencing GANZON to life imprisonment with
hard labor. PAREDES was released from custody while GANZON was made to
serve sentence until he was released in 1978 and placed under house arrest
under guard. In 1985, GANZON joined the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL), the
party in power, where he was designated as campaign manager.
In 1988, administration having changed, then DOJ Sec. Ordoez directed State
Prosecutor Trampe to conduct a preliminary investigation against the private
respondents for the above murders. The private respondents moved for
dismissal, in GANZON'S case, on the ground that he, Ganzon, had been
extended an absolute pardon by the President Marcos, and he, having been
previously convicted, can no longer be tried anew, and in Paredes' case, on the
ground that he, Paredes, had been acquitted. Trampe, however, denied both
requests and reconsideration having been likewise denied, the private
respondents went to the Court of Appeals on prohibition.
The petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals, in granting prohibition,
committed a grave abuse of discretion:
(1)Ganzon has not adequately proved the fact of presidential pardon;
(2)there exists no evidence in the files of the Government to prove pardon;
(3)Ganzon's copy is a bare machine copy and Ganzon has failed to adequately
establish the loss of the original;
(4)the alleged pardon (or copy of it) had not been properly sealed and
authenticated, or executed in official Malacaang stationery; and
(5)the disposition of the murder cases by the military does not preclude the
filing of new informations by the civilian government.
ISSUES & HELD:
1. Whether or not the Government may proceed criminally against the
private respondents despite verdict earlier rendered by Military
Commission No. 34?
CANNOT PROCEED. Private respondents had been arraigned by the military
court, pleaded not guilty, and, with respect to Raul Paredes, acquitted, and with
respect to Ganzon, convicted and sentenced. To the mind of the Court, Ganzon
has accepted the judgment against him, and as Tan asked, "why should [he]
who has accepted the justness of the verdict of the military court who is
satisfied that he had a fair hearing, and who is willing to serve his sentence in
full, be dragged through the harrow of another hearing in a civil court to risk
being convicted a second time perchance to serve a heavier penalty?"
The falls squarely within Tan's ruling, and as we tolerated no reinvestigation
there, we can not tolerate one here.
The Court cited three cases:

a. Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34 Olaguer was rescued from a
court martial which sentenced him to death without receiving evidence in his
defense. It would be a cruel distortion of the Olaguer decision to use it as
authority for reprosecuting civilians regardless of whether, unlike Olaguer,
they had been accorded a fair trial and regardless of whether they have
already been acquitted and released, or have accepted sentences imposed
on them and commenced serving the same.
b. Tan vs. Barrios Olaguer should, in principle, be applied prospectively only
to future cases and cases still ongoing or not yet final when that decision
was promulgated. Hence, there should be no retroactive nullification of final
judgments, whether of conviction or acquittal, rendered by military courts
against civilians BEFORE the promulgation of the Olaguer decision. Such final
sentences should not be disturbed by the State. Only in particular cases
where the convicted person or the State shows that there was serious denial
of the Constitutional rights of the accused should the nullity of the sentence
be declared and a retrial be ordered based on the violation of the
constitutional rights of the accused, and not on the Olaguer doctrine. If a
retrial is no longer possible, accused should be released since the judgment
against him is null on account of the violation of his constitutional rights and
denial of process.
c. Cruz vs. Enrile all the petitioners in said proceedings "who have been
serving (but not yet completed) their sentence imprisonment" shall have "the
option either to complete the servic their sentence, or be tried anew by the
civil courts. Upon conviction they should be credited in the service of their
sentence for the period of their previous imprisonment. Upon acquittal, they
should be set free."
2. Whether or not Ganzon has completed the service of his sentence? YES.
Can Ganzon be reinvestigated? NO.
The Court can not consider Ganzon's house arrest as a continuation of his
sentence. First. because in no way is arrest a penalty, but rather a mere means
of "taking. . . a person into custody in order that he may be forthcoming to
answer for the commission of an offense," or, during early martial law, a means
to carry out Proclamation No. 1881, and second, because of the records' own
scant condition as the exact terms in his "house arrest" (which, parenthetically,
no longer exists.) Hence, the view of the Court is that irrespective of the
"pardon," Ganzon has served his sentence and to reiterate, he can no
longer be reinvestigated for the same offense, much more undergo
further imprisonment to complete his service.

(Poli) Drilon v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Poli) Drilon v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Poli) Drilon v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRILON V.

The Court cited three cases:

You might also like