Romero v. Enrile
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Remegio Romero y Rosana, was apprehended on December 2, 1975, by members of the Metropolitan Police Force. He was suspected of involvement in a robbery that occurred on November 27, 1975, in Quezon City, during which two individuals were held up and one was shot. The petitioner allegedly admitted to participating in the robbery and shooting one of the victims. 2. Procedural History: Following his apprehension, the petitioner was detained and investigated by the Philippine Constabulary. A preliminary investigation report indicated a prima facie case for robbery in band with serious physical injuries and illegal possession of firearms. These offenses were deemed triable by military tribunals under applicable General Orders. A charge sheet was filed and was undergoing evaluation. The petitioner was detained in the Quezon City Jail pursuant to Defense Department Order No. 720 and Presidential Decree No. 421. 3. The Petition: This petition for habeas corpus was filed on September 20, 1976, asserting the petitioner's unlawful detention for nine months without release. The Supreme Court issued the writ, and a return was filed by the respondents, admitting certain facts but asserting the legality of the arrest and detention under General Order No. 2-A and other decrees. The petitioner's counsel was given time to submit a reply but failed to do so. The Court, referencing prior decisions, found that the military tribunals had jurisdiction and that there was no showing of loss of jurisdiction, thus dismissing the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the detention of the petitioner is lawful. Whether the military tribunals have jurisdiction over the offenses imputed to the petitioner. Whether the petitioner is entitled to release on habeas corpus.
Ruling
The petition for habeas corpus is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the lawfulness of detention and jurisdiction of military tribunals: The Court held that the arrest and detention of the petitioner were lawful. The respondents' special and affirmative defenses established that the petitioner was apprehended based on information linking him to a robbery where a victim was shot. This constituted crimes of robbery in band with serious physical injuries and illegal possession of firearms. These offenses are specifically triable by military tribunals under General Orders No. 2-A, No. 12(8), and No. 54. The Court reiterated the doctrine that a habeas corpus petition will not prosper if the detention is pursuant to a lawful arrest and detention for offenses cognizable by military tribunals, provided the military authorities have not lost jurisdiction. The filing of a charge sheet and its ongoing evaluation further supported the lawful process. On the entitlement to release on habeas corpus: The Court found no basis to grant the petition for habeas corpus. The respondents' return to the writ, which was not effectively disputed by the petitioner's counsel despite an opportunity to reply, demonstrated that the petitioner was detained under valid military authority for offenses within the jurisdiction of military tribunals. The case of Go v. General Olivas was cited as controlling, emphasizing that a release on habeas corpus is only warranted if a military tribunal lacks jurisdiction or has lost it. In this case, there was no showing of such loss of jurisdiction. The Court also noted the petitioner's failure to submit a reply to the return, which further weakened his position. On the constitutional safeguards for detainees: The Court emphasized that individuals detained before a military tribunal are entitled to all the rights of an accused under the Constitution. These include the right to be heard, to counsel, to be informed of the accusation, to meet witnesses face-to-face, to compulsory process for evidence, and to be exempt from self-incrimination. The presumption of innocence applies, and guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stressed that military tribunals must observe fundamental rules of law and principles of justice, including the right to a speedy and public trial, to minimize occasions for habeas corpus petitions and ensure constitutional observance.
Main Doctrine
A petition for habeas corpus will be dismissed if the detention is pursuant to lawful arrest and detention under military orders for crimes triable by military tribunals, and there is no showing of loss of jurisdiction by the military authorities. Detainees before military tribunals are entitled to constitutional safeguards.