GR L 36222; (August, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36222 August 21, 1982
AUGUST O. BERNARTE, et al., petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, civilians, were charged with malversation with illegal use of public property before Military Commission No. 5. The charge stemmed from the unloading and apprehension of 4,401 bags of RCA rice in Mariveles, Bataan, in September 1972. Prior to this military charge, a letter-complaint for violation of the RCA law and regulations concerning the illegal possession of the same rice had been filed against some of the petitioners with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. Petitioners challenged the military commission’s jurisdiction, filing an oral motion to quash, which was denied. They subsequently filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, which they also asked to be treated as a habeas corpus proceeding, arguing that the prior filing of the complaint with the civil fiscal deprived the military commission of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
The principal issue is whether Military Commission No. 5 legally assumed jurisdiction over the malversation case against the petitioners, notwithstanding the prior filing of a complaint for violation of the RCA law based on the same facts with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the jurisdictional challenge, the Court ruled that under martial law, the President had the authority to create military commissions to try civilian offenders for specified offenses, including malversation, as sustained in Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 and reiterated in Gumaua v. Espino. The fact that civil courts were open and functioning did not divest the legally constituted military commissions of their concurrent jurisdiction over such offenses during the period of martial law.
On the claim of double jeopardy, the Court found it devoid of merit. The constitutional guarantee protects against a second prosecution for the “same offense.” The charge before the military commission was for malversation, a distinct offense from the violation of RCA laws and regulations alleged in the complaint before the Provincial Fiscal. Furthermore, double jeopardy attaches only after a valid conviction, acquittal, or dismissal by a court of competent jurisdiction where the accused has pleaded. A mere preliminary complaint or investigation, such as the one filed with the fiscal, does not constitute jeopardy. Therefore, the military commission validly exercised its jurisdiction.