GR L 79173; (December, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-79173 December 1, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROLANDO N. ABADILLA, SUSAN S. ABADILLA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. General FIDEL V. RAMOS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the family of Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla, filed a petition for habeas corpus challenging his detention by military authorities. Colonel Abadilla was implicated in two failed military uprisings: the January 1987 takeover of a broadcasting station and the April 1987 “Black Saturday Revolt” at Fort Bonifacio. Investigations by military boards recommended the filing of charges against him under the Articles of War for mutiny and related crimes. While at large, he was ordered arrested on May 4, 1987, and was subsequently dropped from the rolls of AFP officers effective May 9, 1987, pursuant to General Orders. He was eventually arrested on July 27, 1987, and detained. Petitioners argued his detention was illegal because, having been dropped from the military rolls, he was a civilian not subject to military law and was not formally charged before any court at the time of the petition.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the detention of Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla by military authorities is lawful.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling the detention was valid. The Court held that being dropped from the rolls is an administrative termination of military service that does not extinguish liability for offenses committed while in active service. Colonel Abadilla’s alleged crimes of mutiny and sedition occurred in January and April 1987, while he was unquestionably a member of the Armed Forces. Military jurisdiction over these offenses attached at the moment of their commission. This jurisdiction is not divested by his subsequent administrative separation. The Court emphasized that the purpose of dropping him from the rolls was to prevent him from drawing pay and exercising command, not to absolve him of criminal accountability. Therefore, the military retained the authority to arrest, detain, and proceed with court-martial proceedings against him for violations of the Articles of War committed during his tenure. His detention was a necessary step in the military justice process, pending the formal filing of charges, and thus did not constitute illegal restraint.