G.R. No. L-83177, December 6, 1988
LT. COL. EDUARDO KAPUNAN, JR., PAF, and LT. COL. NELSON ESLAO, PAF, petitioners, vs. AFP CHIEF OF STAFF GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN. MANUEL CASACLANG, AFP, COMMODORE VIRGILIO Q. MARCELO, AFP, PMA SUPERINTENDENT COMMODORE ROGELIO DAYAN, AFP, GENERAL COURT MARTIAL NO. 8, MAJ. PEDRO ROSAL, JAGS, MAJ. FELIX V. BALDONADO, JAGS, LT. COL. RODULFO MUNAR, JAGS and AFP BOARD OF OFFICERS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, military officers implicated in the failed August 28, 1987 coup attempt, were relieved from their Philippine Military Academy posts. Following an investigation by a PMA Board of Officers, the AFP Board recommended charges for mutiny and conduct unbecoming an officer. A subsequent “pre-trial investigation” by respondent Maj. Baldonado found a prima facie case. Petitioners, instead of submitting counter-affidavits, filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. They were then subpoenaed for arraignment before General Court Martial No. 8. Petitioner Kapunan was also placed under “house arrest” initially in connection with the coup and later, briefly, for a separate murder case. After his release concerning the murder case, his confinement continued for the court-martial charges. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus, challenging the investigation’s validity and Kapunan’s detention.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether petitioners were denied due process in the investigation; (2) whether respondent investigator gravely abused his discretion in finding a prima facie case; and (3) whether petitioner Kapunan’s confinement is legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On due process, the Court ruled that military law, specifically Article 71 of the Articles of War, governs the investigation of charges against military personnel, not the rules on preliminary investigation under Presidential Decree No. 77. The procedure followed complied with military law, as charges were properly sworn to and investigated, and petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard, which they waived by not submitting counter-affidavits. The fact that the investigating officer considered evidence gathered by a prior PMA Board did not violate due process, as military tribunals have latitude in their investigative processes.
Regarding the finding of a prima facie case, the Court held that the determination by the investigating officer is an executive function reviewing the evidence’s sufficiency. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which petitioners failed to demonstrate, such finding is not subject to judicial review. The Court found no arbitrariness in the recommendation for trial.
On the habeas corpus plea, the Court ruled Kapunan’s confinement was legal. A charge for mutiny, a serious offense punishable by death under the Articles of War, constitutes legal cause for arrest or confinement under Article 70. The restrictions of his “house arrest,” including limits on issuing press statements, were justified as reasonable curtailments of individual rights necessary for military discipline. The writ of habeas corpus does not lie when the detention is by virtue of a lawful charge. The temporary restraining order was lifted.