Martelino v. Alejandro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, including Major Eduardo Martelino and officers/men under him, faced court-martial proceedings for alleged violation of the 94th and 97th Articles of War, stemming from the shooting of Muslim recruits undergoing commando training on Corregidor island on March 18, 1968. Procedural History: A prior question regarding the jurisdiction of the general court-martial over the case, despite a complaint for frustrated murder filed in the fiscal's office, was resolved in favor of the military court's jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in Arula v. Espino. Following the resumption of proceedings, petitioners sought relief against certain orders of the general court-martial. The Petition: Petitioners sought the disqualification of the President of the general court-martial due to his admission of reading newspaper stories about the Corregidor incident, arguing that extensive publicity and its exploitation for political purposes in the upcoming presidential election imperiled their right to a fair trial. The military court denied this challenge. Petitioners also raised peremptory challenges against several members of the court-martial, contending they were entitled to eleven such challenges (one for each specification), while the court-martial ruled they were entitled to only one peremptory challenge as the specifications were jointly tried. This petition for certiorari and prohibition sought to nullify the orders denying these challenges.
Issue(s)
Whether the publicity surrounding the Corregidor incident and its exploitation for political purposes imperiled the petitioners' right to a fair trial, constituting a grave abuse of discretion by the general court-martial in denying their challenge for cause. Whether the petitioners are entitled to eleven peremptory challenges, one for each specification, or a different number as determined by the court-martial.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the temporary restraining order is lifted. The Court ruled that each of the 23 petitioners is entitled to one separate peremptory challenge. However, it found no grave abuse of discretion in denying the challenge for cause based on publicity, as the publicity did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on the government's responsibility, and the suspension of proceedings had already allowed the atmosphere to clear.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of publicity and fair trial: The Court acknowledged that while civil courts generally do not supervise court-martial proceedings, they may intervene for grave abuse of discretion. The publicity surrounding the Corregidor incident, described as a "massacre," was argued by petitioners to have created an environment that would prevent a fair trial, citing US Supreme Court cases like Irvin v. Dowd, Rideau v. Louisiana, Estes v. Texas, and Shepard v. Maxwell. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that the publicity in the present case focused on the government's responsibility rather than the petitioners' guilt. Furthermore, the Court found that the suspension of the court-martial proceedings had already served the purpose of allowing the publicity to subside and the atmosphere to clear, thus mitigating any potential prejudice. The Court concluded that the denial of the challenge for cause did not constitute a grave abuse of discretion, as there was no showing that the court-martial members were unduly influenced or that the trial was held under circumstances that denied due process. On the issue of peremptory challenges: The Court clarified the interpretation of Article of War 18. It held that "each side" in reference to the defense means each accused person is entitled to one peremptory challenge. The number of specifications or charges, and whether the accused are tried jointly or in common, are irrelevant to this right. The Court reasoned that a peremptory challenge is an arbitrary right to reject a juror without cause, grounded in the need for the accused to feel that they are being tried by an impartial body. The Court emphasized that the right to challenge is the right to reject, not to select, and that if an impartial court is obtained from the remaining officers, the constitutional right to a fair trial is maintained. Therefore, with 23 petitioners, each was entitled to one peremptory challenge, totaling 23 challenges, not the eleven or eight previously considered by the court-martial.
Main Doctrine
Each accused is entitled to one peremptory challenge, irrespective of the number of specifications and/or charges, and whether tried jointly or in common. Civil courts may review court-martial proceedings for grave abuse of discretion, even if jurisdiction is otherwise established.