GR 93559; (April, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93559 ; April 26, 1991
MAJOR ROMEO G. ELEPANTE, petitioner, vs. HON. JOB B. MADAYAG, 1st Vice Executive Judge, Branch 145, Makati, Metro Manila REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, and MAJ. GEN. RODOLFO BIAZON, respondents.
FACTS
Major Romeo Elepante, a Philippine Navy officer, filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. He alleged that on April 15, 1990, armed soldiers without a warrant arrested him at his home, detained him at the National Capital Region Defense Command, and investigated him for five days without any formal charges. The military presented only a copy of an order of arrest and confinement issued by a Colonel.
The RTC dismissed his petition, opining that his arrest was due to involvement in coup attempts and was governed by military law, specifically Article 70 of the Articles of War, which allows confinement by order of a commanding officer without a formal charge. Elepante elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing his detention without a criminal complaint was unconstitutional.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Supreme Court can review the RTC’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, given the procedural question of the timeliness of Elepante’s appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition because the decision of the RTC had already attained finality. Rule 41, Section 18 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that an appeal in habeas corpus cases must be perfected within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment. This requirement is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, as established in Saulo v. Cruz.
The Court found that Elepante’s counsel received a copy of the RTC decision on May 29, 1990. The instant petition was filed only on June 11, 1990, which was thirteen days later, far beyond the 48-hour reglementary period. Consequently, the RTC’s decision became final and executory, depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review it on the merits.
Nevertheless, the Court, as the protector of constitutional rights, issued a directive to respondent General Biazon. It emphasized that while Article 70 of the Articles of War may authorize initial confinement, Article 71 requires immediate steps for trial or release. An indefinite confinement without establishing a prima facie case or filing charges is not sanctioned. The military was thus reminded of its duty to either proceed with a trial or release the detainee promptly to avoid unnecessary delay.