G.R. No. 223272 . February 26, 2018.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, SSGT. EDGARDO L. OSORIO, Petitioner, vs. ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR JUAN PEDRO C. NAVERA, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner SSgt. Edgardo L. Osorio, a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, for the kidnapping and serious illegal detention of University of the Philippines students Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan. The Informations alleged that the accused, “acting as private individuals,” forcibly abducted the victims in June 2006. Warrants for his arrest were issued, and he was subsequently apprehended and detained at the Philippine Army Custodial Center.
Osorio filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals, contending his detention was illegal. He argued that jurisdiction over his case lay with a court-martial, not the civil courts, as he was a soldier on active duty and the alleged acts were “service-connected.” Alternatively, he claimed that since his co-accused included a high-ranking officer, the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals denied his petition, finding his detention was by virtue of a valid judicial process. Osorio elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the remedy of habeas corpus is available to SSgt. Osorio, challenging his detention by the RTC on the ground of alleged lack of jurisdiction over his person and the offense charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy. Habeas corpus secures the release of an individual whose liberty is restrained without a lawful cause. The Court held that Osorio’s detention was pursuant to valid warrants of arrest issued by the RTC in relation to pending criminal cases. The mere assertion of a jurisdictional challenge does not render the detention illegal for purposes of habeas corpus. The RTC, at this stage, is presumed to have acted with jurisdiction in issuing the warrants. Any question regarding the RTC’s jurisdiction over the offense or the accused must be raised through the proper procedural channels within the criminal case itself, such as a motion to quash the information, and not via a collateral attack through a habeas corpus petition.
The Court further elucidated that the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction. Under Republic Act No. 7055 , crimes committed by members of the AFP which are not “service-connected” fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. The Informations explicitly alleged that the accused acted as “private individuals.” Kidnapping is intrinsically a civilian crime that cannot be considered a function of a soldier or connected to military service. Therefore, the offense charged is not service-connected, and the civil courts properly have jurisdiction. The alternative argument regarding the Sandiganbayan was also dismissed, as the law confers jurisdiction based on the position of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense, and Osorio did not allege he held a position within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. His detention being by virtue of a valid judicial order, the petition for habeas corpus must fail.