G.R. No. L-30894 March 25, 1970
EDUARDO L. MARTELINO, CIRILO OROPESA, TEODORO FACELO, RUPERTO AMISOTO, ALBERTO SOTECO, SOLFERINO TITONG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE ALEJANDRO, RUBEN S. MONTOYA, SIXTO R. ALHAMBRA, AVELINO C. MENEZ, EFRAIN S. MACLANG, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This case involves court-martial proceedings against Major Eduardo Martelino and other officers and men for violations of the Articles of War related to the shooting of Muslim recruits on Corregidor on March 18, 1968. After this Court previously upheld the military court’s jurisdiction, the petitioners sought relief against certain orders of the general court-martial. At a hearing on August 12, 1969, petitioner Martelino challenged the President of the court-martial for cause, arguing that extensive and prejudicial publicity in the press and other media, including exploitation for political purposes in the 1969 presidential election, imperiled his right to a fair trial. The court-martial denied this challenge. Subsequently, the petitioners raised peremptory challenges against the president and several members of the court. They contended they were entitled to eleven peremptory challenges (one for each specification), while the court-martial ruled they were entitled to only one joint challenge as the specifications were being jointly tried. The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify these orders.

ISSUE

1. Whether the general court-martial committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the challenge for cause based on prejudicial publicity, thereby violating the petitioners’ right to a fair trial.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to eleven peremptory challenges (one per specification) or only one joint peremptory challenge.

RULING

1. On the challenge for cause due to prejudicial publicity: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The cited U.S. cases (Irvin v. Dowd, Rideau v. Louisiana, Estes v. Texas, Shepard v. Maxwell) were distinguished as involving far more extreme and pervasive publicity that directly contaminated the trial proceedings (e.g., televised confessions, a barrage of prejudicial news establishing community prejudice). In contrast, the publicity in this case, while extensive, consisted of general news reports and editorial comment. The petitioners failed to present concrete proof that the fairness and impartiality of the court-martial members, particularly the president, were actually impaired. The members are presumed to possess the “fortitude to resist and repel the insidious influence of publicity.” The challenge was correctly denied.
2. On the number of peremptory challenges: The Court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to only one peremptory challenge to be exercised jointly. The Manual for Courts-Martial, which has the force of law, explicitly provides in paragraph 53(c) that “all accused tried upon any one charge or upon multiple charges which are tried together shall be considered as one party and shall exercise only one challenge.” The specifications in this case were being jointly tried as multiple charges. The law does not grant a peremptory challenge for each specification but for each party (the prosecution and the defense) in relation to the court as a whole. The court-martial’s interpretation was correct.