FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA and CAPT.

FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, respondents.

G.R. No. 95020. August 2, 1991.*

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED BGEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A.

MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI,
Comendador vs. De Villa COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA,
*
and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, petitioners, vs.
G.R. No. 93177. August 2, 1991. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge,
Branch 104, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Q.C., LTC.
BGEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, BGEN. MARIELO JACINTO LIGOT, PA., respondents.
BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, CAPT. MANUEL
ISON, COL. LUISITO SANCHEZ, LTC. ROMELINO G.R. No. 96948. August 2, 1991.*
GOJO, LTC. ARSENIO TECSON, LTC. RAFAEL
GALVEZ, LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO, LTC. ERICSON BGEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, BGEN. MARCELO
AURELIO, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT, LTC. FRANKLIN BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO PN, CAPT.
BRAWNER, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS, MAJ. CESAR MANUEL ISON PN, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO PN (M),
DE LA PEÑA, MAJ. LEUVINO VALENCIA, CAPT. LTC. ARSENIO TECSON PA, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ PA,
FLORENCIO FLORES, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO, CAPT. LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO PA, LTC. ERICSON
DANILO LIM, CAPT. ELMER AMON, CAPT. VERGEL AURELIO PA, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT, PA, LTC.
NACINO, and LT. JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. GEN. FRANKLIN BRAWNER PA, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS
RENATO S. DE VILLA, CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, THE PTI PA, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PENA PN (M): MAJ. LEUVINO
INVESTIGATING PANEL COMPOSED OF: COL. VALENCIA PA, CAPT. FLORENCIO FLORES PA, CAPT.
MANUEL S. MENDIOLA, COL. VIRTUD NORBERTO L. JAIME JUNIO PA, CAPT. DANILO LIM PA, CAPT.
DAGZA, MAJ. FELIX V. BALDONADO and MAJ. ELMER AMON PAF, CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, and LT.
ESTELITO L. PORNEA, and GENERAL COURT- JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. BGEN. DEMETRIO
MARTIAL NO. 14 COMPOSED OF: BGEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL.
CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY
ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA, and CAPT.
FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, PRESIDENT AND
_______________
MEMBERS OF GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14,
respondents.
* EN BANC.
G.R. No. 97454. August 2, 1991.*
81

AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN RODOLFO BIAZON,

VOL. 200, AUGUST 2, 1991 81 DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF MAJOR GEN. ALEXANDER
Comendador vs. De Villa AGUIRRE, PNP DIRECTOR GENERAL MAJOR GEN.
CESAR NAZARENO and LT. COL. ALBERTO OLARIO,
Commanding Officer of the PNP/INP Detention
Center/Jail, petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, substantial compliance with Article of War 71 by the PTI Panel.
Branch 86, CAPTAIN Moreover, it is now settled that “even a failure to conduct, a pre-
trial investigation does not deprive a general court-martial of
82 jurisdiction.” x x x But even a failure to conduct a pre-trial
investigation does not deprive a general court-martial of
jurisdiction. The better accepted concept of pre-trial investigation
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED is that it is directory, not mandatory, and in no way affects the
Comendador vs. De Villa jurisdiction of a court-martial.
Statutory Construction; It is a basic canon of statutory
construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself
REYNALDO S. RAFAEL, 1LT. SERVANDO A. BAOANAN ceases;
PN(M), 1LT. WILFREDO JIMENEZ PAF, 1LT.
ATANACIO T. MACALAN, JR PM(M), 2LT. ELISEO T. 83
RASCO PC, 2LT. JONAS CALLEJA PC, 2LT. JAIRUS JS.
GELVEZON III PM(M), 2LT. JOSELITO CABREROS
PM(M), 2LT. MEMEL ROJAS PN(M) and 2LT.
HERMINIO L. CANTACO PC, respondents. VOL. 200, AUGUST 2, 1991 83

Comendador vs. De Villa

Constitution; Bail; Constitution grants the right to bail to all
persons with the defined exception is applicable and covers all Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex.—It is a basic canon of
military men facing court-martial proceedings.—On August 22, statutory construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the
1990, the trial court rendered judgment inter alia: (a) Declaring, law itself ceases. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex. This
that Section 13, Article III of the Constitution granting the right principle is also expressed in the maxim ratio legis est anima: the
to bail to all persons with the defined exception is applicable and reason of law is its soul.
covers all military men facing court-martial proceedings.
Accordingly, the assailed orders of General Court-Martial No. 14 Jurisdiction; Certiorari; Habeas Corpus, Quo warranto;
denying bail to petitioner and intervenors on the mistaken Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
assumption that bail does not apply to military men facing court- Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari,
martial proceedings on the ground that there is no precedent, are prohibition or mandamus against inferior court and other bodies
hereby set aside and declared null and void. Respondent General and on petition for habeas corpus and quo warranto.—The
Court-Martial No. 14 is hereby directed to conduct proceedings on Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
the applications of bail of the petitioner, interve-nors and which Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari,
may as well include other persons facing charges before General prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies
Court-Martial No. 14. and on petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto. In the
absence of a law providing that the decisions, orders and ruling of
Same; Bill of Rights; Due Process; Due process is satisfied as a court-martial or the Office of the Chief of Staff can be
long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not questioned only before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violation of the Court, we hold that the Regional Trial Court can exercise similar
Bill of Rights.—Due process is satisfied as long as the party is jurisdiction.
accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is
deemed waived or forfeited without violation of the Bill of Rights. Constitution; Bill of Rights; Bail; Equal Protection; That
denial from the military of the right to bail would violate the equal
Criminal Procedure; Pre-trial; Jurisdiction; Pre-trial protection clause is not acceptable.—The argument that denial
investigation is directory, not mandatory, and in no way affects the from the military of the right to bail would violate the equal
jurisdiction of a court martial.—There was in our view
protection clause is not acceptable. This guaranty requires equal
treatment only of persons or things similarly situated and does
not apply where the subject of the treatment is substantially
different from others. The accused officers can complain if they
are denied bail and other members of the military are not. But
they cannot say they have been discriminated against because
they are not allowed the same right that is extended to civilians.
Remedial Law; Certiorari; Jurisdiction; Appeal; A petition for
certiorari in order to prosper, must be based on jurisdictional
grounds because, as long as respondent acted with jurisdiction,
any error committed by him or in the exercise thereof will amount
to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed
or corrected only by appeal.—Regarding the propriety of the
petitions at bar, it is well to reiterate the following observations of
the Court in Arula: The referral of charges to a court-martial
involves the exercise of judgment and discretion (AW 71). A
petition for certiorari, in order to prosper, must be based on
jurisdictional grounds because, as long as the respondent acted
with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise
thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judg-

84

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Comendador vs. De Villa

ment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal. Even an

abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance
of a writ of certiorari.

G.R. No. 93177:

PETITION for certiorari prohibition and mandamus to

review the decision of the General Court Martial No. 14.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

G.R. No. 96948:

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the

General Court Martial No. 14.