G.R. No. 88555 November 21, 1991
Eduardo N. Aswat, petitioner, vs. Brigadier-General Alejandro Galido, in his capacity as Commander of the Southern Luzon Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo N. Aswat, a Private First Class, was charged before a General Court-Martial convened by the Southern Luzon Command (SOLCOM) for the homicide of Corporal Felix B. Nebres. The incident occurred on December 29, 1988, at Dominican Hills, Baguio City, an area outside a military reservation. Both Aswat and Nebres were enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines assigned to SOLCOM. After voluntarily surrendering to civilian police, Aswat was transferred to military custody on December 31, 1988, where he remained detained.
While the court-martial proceedings were ongoing, Aswat filed this petition for habeas corpus. He contended that the civilian courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the offense since it was committed outside a military installation. He further asserted a constitutional right to bail and claimed entitlement to his full base pay and other pay during his detention, in addition to allowances.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the General Court-Martial had jurisdiction to try Aswat for an offense committed outside a military reservation; (2) whether Aswat had a constitutional right to bail; and (3) whether he was entitled to receive his base pay and other pay while under detention pending trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the distinction between offenses committed inside and outside a military reservation was obliterated by Republic Act No. 242 , which amended Article 94 of the Articles of War. Under the amended law, a court-martial has jurisdiction over offenses committed outside a reservation when both the accused and the offended party are persons subject to military law. Since Aswat and the deceased Nebres were both enlisted personnel subject to military law, the SOLCOM General Court-Martial properly acquired jurisdiction. The Court also noted that by applying for bail before the court-martial, Aswat effectively recognized its jurisdiction and was estopped from denying it.
On the right to bail, the Court ruled that the constitutional guarantee is not absolute and has traditionally not been recognized in the military justice system. Citing Comendador v. De Villa, the Court emphasized the structural peculiarity of the military, where personnel are fiduciarily entrusted with firearms by the state, justifying this exception. The equal protection clause was not violated, as military personnel are not similarly situated with civilians.
Regarding pay, the Court applied the principle of “no work, no pay.” Since Aswat’s detention necessarily restrained him from performing his ordinary military duties, and there was no showing he was on full duty status, he was not entitled to base pay or other pay during detention. However, the law expressly permitted him to receive regular and other allowances if otherwise entitled.