Bernarte v. Secretary of National Defense
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners were under detention by military authorities, facing charges for malversation with illegal use of public property before Military Commission No. 5. The charges stemmed from the unloading of RCA rice from the M/V New Cronulla in Mariveles, Bataan, onto a barge, and its subsequent apprehension two days later with the rice in Makati, Rizal. Procedural History: A criminal complaint based on the same facts was initially filed before the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal for "Violation of the Rules and Regulations of the RCA Law, amended by RA No. 3452," specifically "Illegal possession of RCA rice." An oral motion to quash before respondent Military Commission No. 5, based on lack of jurisdiction, was denied, as was a subsequent motion for reconsideration. This led to the filing of the present certiorari and prohibition proceeding, which was also viewed as a petition for habeas corpus. The Petition: Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Military Commission No. 5, arguing that they were civilians charged with malversation allegedly committed in a non-military area, while civil courts were open and functioning. They contended that military tribunals trying civilian offenders were anachronistic, especially given the President's decree changing the permanent stations of district judges. Respondents, through the Solicitor General, argued that the Military Commission had concurrent jurisdiction and that the offenses were distinct, thus no double jeopardy attached.
Issue(s)
Whether Military Commission No. 5 legally assumed jurisdiction over the charge of malversation despite a prior complaint for violation of the RCA law filed with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. Whether the filing of a prior complaint before the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal for violation of the RCA law and regulations deprived the military commissions of their concurrent jurisdiction to try the case for malversation; and whether the prior complaint before the Provincial Fiscal had progressed to a stage that would trigger double jeopardy. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the writ of certiorari and prohibition, or habeas corpus.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of Military Commission No. 5: The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2, affirming that civilians could be tried by a Military Commission during martial law for specified offenses. The Court cited Gumaua v. Espino for the doctrine that the President, during martial law, could create military commissions to try civilian offenders for specified offenses, and malversation was one such offense. Therefore, the legal point raised by petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the military commission was bereft of merit. On the issue of double jeopardy and concurrent jurisdiction: The Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy is against prosecution "for the same offense." It further clarified, citing Collector of Customs v. Villaluz, that double jeopardy does not arise merely from a preliminary examination or investigation. The protection only attaches after the first trial which results in conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or termination of the case without the accused's consent, by a competent court upon a valid complaint or information after the accused has pleaded to the charge. The Court noted that petitioners failed to establish that the offenses were identical or that the prior complaint before the Provincial Fiscal had progressed to a stage that would trigger double jeopardy. Moreover, the offense of malversation allegedly committed in Bataan could not have been prosecuted by the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, and vice versa, indicating distinct jurisdictions and potentially distinct offenses. No specific ratio provided for the entitlement to writs; this would depend on the resolution of the previous issues.
Main Doctrine
Military commissions have concurrent jurisdiction with civil courts to try civilians for offenses committed during martial law, and the filing of a prior complaint before a fiscal does not automatically divest the military commission of jurisdiction, nor does it constitute double jeopardy if the offenses are distinct.