Aswat v. Galido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Eduardo N. Aswat, an enlisted man of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), was involved in a shooting incident on December 29, 1988, at Dominican Hills, Baguio City, which resulted in the death of Felix B. Nebres, also an enlisted man of the AFP. Both were assigned to the Southern Luzon Command (SOLCOM), with Aswat detailed as caretaker of Brigadier General Alejandro Galido's resthouse and Nebres as personal driver to Brigadier General Galido's wife. Procedural History: Petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the Baguio City police, was briefly incarcerated, and then transferred to a SOLCOM detention cell. On April 20, 1989, he was charged before a SOLCOM General Court-Martial (SOLCOM-GCM) with violation of Article 94 of the Articles of War (A.W.), the specification being homicide. While court-martial proceedings were ongoing, petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus. The Petition: Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the SOLCOM-GCM, arguing that the offense was committed outside a military installation and thus cognizable by a civilian court. He also contended entitlement to release on bail and to receive his full base pay and other pay during detention.
Issue(s)
Whether the General Court-Martial has jurisdiction over a homicide offense committed outside a military reservation. Whether petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Whether petitioner is entitled to receive his base pay and other pay during his detention.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the Petition for Habeas Corpus for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the General Court-Martial: The Court held that the distinction between offenses committed inside and outside a military installation, which petitioner relied upon, has been obliterated by Republic Act No. 242, amending Article 94 of the Articles of War. As the law now stands, a court-martial has jurisdiction as long as the accused is subject to military law and the offense is committed outside a military reservation when the offended party is also subject to military law. In this case, both petitioner and the deceased Nebres were subject to military law at the time of the incident, thus vesting jurisdiction in the court-martial. Furthermore, by seeking affirmative relief of bail from the SOLCOM-GCM, petitioner recognized its jurisdiction and is now estopped from denying it. On the right to bail: The Court reiterated its ruling in Comendador vs. De Villa, et al., stating that the right to bail is not available in the military as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. The unique structure of the military, the nature of military duties, and the potential for mutiny justify this exception. The guarantee of equal protection requires equal treatment only of persons similarly situated, and military personnel are substantially different from civilians in this regard. Petitioner, being subject to military law, is subject to confinement under Article 70, A.W., which is a matter left to the sound discretion of his superior officers to ensure discipline and command efficiency. On the entitlement to base pay and other pay: The Court ruled that under Section 18, Article 6 of R.A. No. 138, as amended, an enlisted man awaiting trial by court-martial is not entitled to receive pay, as distinguished from allowances, until the result of the trial is known. This is based on the principle of "no work, no pay," as detention necessarily restrains the petitioner's freedom to perform his ordinary military duties. However, the law expressly permits the receipt of regular and other allowances if otherwise entitled thereto while under detention. Petitioner failed to show he was placed on "full duty status" and performing "regular duties" pending trial.
Main Doctrine
A court-martial has jurisdiction over offenses committed outside a military reservation if the accused is subject to military law and the offended party is also subject to military law. The right to bail is not available to military personnel as an exception to the general rule, and pay is generally not received during detention unless placed on full duty status.