Gamos v. Abu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Colonel Jose F. Gamos, filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming he was illegally arrested and restricted to his quarters. He had requested a 60-day leave of absence to attend to personal matters and finish his MA thesis. He went to Mindanao to engage in a scrap metal business. Upon learning his leave was cut short, he returned to Manila and was immediately taken into custody upon the verbal order of Lt. Gen. Efren F. Abu. Petitioner claimed he was not informed of the reason for his arrest and no written order was issued. Procedural History: Petitioner's counsel wrote to Lt. Gen. Abu protesting the arrest. A reply indicated that petitioner was charged under Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War) for alleged gross violations of Article of War 96 (Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman) and Article of War 97 (Disorders and Neglects to the Prejudice of Good Order and Military Discipline). An affidavit from Mannan Tambayong was attached, stating petitioner was seen campaigning for presidential candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. in Patikul, Sulu. The Supreme Court required respondents to file an Answer. The Petition: Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to question the legality of his confinement, alleging it was devoid of legal support.
Issue(s)
Whether the confinement of petitioner is devoid of support in law. Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be granted.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The filing of the case against petitioner before the military court defeats the petition for habeas corpus. The case having been filed in court, petitioner's remedy lies in that court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the confinement of petitioner is devoid of support in law: The respondents submitted proof of written orders for petitioner's arrest, specifically an order from the Commander of the Southern Command (COMSOUTHCOM) dated May 15, 2004, signed by Colonel Pedro P. Biasbas. An Official Report dated June 8, 2004, by Army Provost Marshall Colonel Roberto C. Ver, summarized the alleged electioneering activities of the petitioner based on investigation reports, affidavits, and other records. The respondents averred that petitioner was informed of the reason for his arrest during an investigation on May 27, 2004, where he was allegedly with his counsel and was shown documentary evidence. Another investigation on June 3, 2004, involved showing petitioner the affidavit of Mannan Tambayong. Furthermore, petitioner himself admitted receiving a facsimile copy of the Charge Sheet dated June 8, 2004, which he appended to his petition. Therefore, the confinement was based on official military proceedings and documentation. On Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be granted: The Supreme Court held that the filing of the case against petitioner before the military court renders the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic. The Court reasoned that once a case has been filed in the proper court, which in this instance is the military court martial, the petitioner's remedy is to pursue his defense and seek relief within that judicial system. The existence of formal charges under the Articles of War signifies that the petitioner is undergoing a legal process within the military justice system, which is the appropriate venue to resolve the legality of his detention and the charges against him. Consequently, the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus, which is typically used to inquire into the legality of detention when no other legal remedy is available or when the detention is patently illegal, is no longer the proper recourse.
Main Doctrine
A petition for habeas corpus is rendered moot and academic when the petitioner has been charged in court martial proceedings, as the remedy then lies with the military court.