G.R. No. 93177 , G.R. No. 95020, G.R. No. 96948, G.R. No. 97454; August 2, 1991
B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, et al. vs. GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, et al. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

These consolidated petitions arose from the failed December 1989 coup d’état. The petitioners, military officers, were charged with violations of the Articles of War, including Mutiny and Murder. A Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel was constituted, which issued a uniform subpoena directing the officers to appear and submit counter-affidavits, explicitly stating “DO NOT SUBMIT A MOTION TO DISMISS.” The officers challenged the proceedings, filing a Motion for Summary Dismissal, which the Panel denied, ordering them to submit their counter-affidavits. The officers refused, leading the Panel to terminate the investigation and forward the charges for trial by General Court-Martial (GCM) No. 14.
Simultaneously, some officers filed petitions in Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). One RTC granted a petition for habeas corpus and ordered the release of certain officers. Another RTC, in a special civil action, set aside GCM No. 14’s order denying bail and granted provisional liberty. The military prosecutors and GCM members challenged these RTC orders before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) the validity of the PTI proceedings; (2) the right to peremptory challenge in the court-martial; and (3) the jurisdiction of civilian courts (RTCs) to interfere with ongoing court-martial proceedings, particularly on bail and habeas corpus.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled partially for the petitioners. On the PTI, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The directive “DO NOT SUBMIT A MOTION TO DISMISS” was not improper, as a pre-trial investigation is not a trial but an ex parte proceeding to determine probable cause. The Panel acted within its authority in denying the motion and proceeding upon the officers’ refusal to submit counter-evidence.
However, the Court upheld the officers’ right to a peremptory challenge under Article 18 of the Articles of War ( Commonwealth Act No. 408 ). GCM No. 14 erred in denying this right, and it was ordered to allow the challenge.
Crucially, the Court held that the RTCs acted without jurisdiction. Civil courts cannot interfere with court-martial proceedings, which are lawful exercises of military jurisdiction. The grant of bail and the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus by the RTCs were void. The power to grant bail in court-martial cases resides solely with the military tribunal itself or, in proper cases, the Supreme Court. The orders of the RTCs were reversed and set aside.