Garcia v. Executive Secretary (2012)
Garcia v. Executive Secretary (2012)
Nature of the Case: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
Plaintiff‐Appellee: MAJ. GEN. CARLOS F. GARCIA (Ret.)
Defendant‐Appelant: THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, representing the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (OP)
Summary: Maj. Gen. Garcia was sentenced his dishonorable discharge from service, forfeiture of all his pay and
allowances, and confinement for two years in a penitentiary. He subsequently availed of compulsory retirement.
He argues that the General Court Martial has lost jurisdiction in view of his retirement and that his time served in
the penitentiary should be credited to his sentence. The Court ruled in the negative in the former, and affirmative
in the latter.
Doctrine: Powers and Functions of the President – Commander‐in‐Chief
FACTS:
16 November 2005 – Office of the Chief of Staff Memorandum: transfer of confinement of Maj. Gen. Garcia
(Garcia) from Camp Aguinaldo to the ISAFP Detention Center.
o On the same day, having reached the age of fifty‐six (56), compulsorily retired from military service.
02 December 2005 – Special General Court Martial No. 2 found Maj. Gen. Garcia Guilty in violation of Article
961 and 972 of the Articles of War. He was sentenced to be dishonorably [discharged] from the service, to
forfeit all pay and allowances due and to become due and to be confined at hard labor at such place the
reviewing authority may direct for a period of two (2) years.
27 March 2006 – Staff Judge Advocate recommendation to impose the sentence and confine Garcia at the
PNP custodial facility in Camp Crame. The period of confinement from 18 October 2004 shall be credited in
his favor and deducted from the two (2) years to which the accused was sentenced. Thus, confinement will
expire on 18 October 2006.
The AFP Board of Military Review recommended the penalty and forwarded the records of the case for the
recommending approval.
16 December 2010 – After six (6) years and two (2) months of preventive confinement, petitioner was
released from the Camp Crame Detention Center.
09 September 2011 – The President confirmed the sentence imposed by the Court Martial.
16 September 2011 – Garcia was arrested and detained at the National Penetentiary.
Petitioner Garcia filed petition for certiorari and petition for habeas corpus. The Court, however, denied the
habeas corpus petition and Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner:
o General Court Martial (GCM) no longer had jurisdiction over the petitioner upon his retirement.
o OP acted with grave abuse of discretion.
o Sentence had been fully served during petitioner’s preventive confinement.
OSG:
o GCM retained jurisdiction – jurisdiction had already attached prior to petitioner’s retirement.
o President’s confirmation sanctioned by C.A. 408 and E.O. 178
ISSUE/S + RULING:
W/N the GCM lost jurisdiction over Garcia in view of his compulsory retirement. – NO!
o Held: General Court Martial had jurisdiction over the case since it was indisputable that Garcia was
an officer in the active service of AFP when he committed the violations until he was arraigned.
o Garcia’s retirement on 18 November 2004 did not divest the General Court Martial of its jurisdiction.
1
CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND GENTLEMAN
2
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE
Well settled rule that that jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but
o
continues until the case is terminated.3
o The GCM having jurisdiction, the President, as Commander‐in‐Chief, also acquired jurisdiction to
confirm Garcia’s sentence under Article 474 of the Articles of War.
W/N Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) can be applied in view of Garcia’s having fully served and
exceeded preventive confinement – YES!
o Held: Art. 29 of the RPC should apply to the case. The time served under Garcia’s preventive
suspension should be credited to his sentence
o A court‐martial case is a criminal case and the General Court Martial is a "court" akin to any other
courts. In the same case, this Court clarified as to what constitutes the words "any court" used in
Section 17 of the 1935 Constitution.5
o Garcia was charged under the 96th and 97th Articles of War, which are not defined and penalized
under the Revised Penal Code (hence, Special Penal Law).
o Absent any provision as to the application of a criminal concept in the implementation and
execution of the GCM’s decision, the provisions of the RPC, specifically Art. 29 should be applied.6
o Application of Art. 29 is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause. Garcia belongs to the class
of those who have been convicted by any court, thus, he is entitled to the rights accorded to them.
W/N the President committed grave abuse of discretion in confirming the sentence – NO!
o Held: It is in the President’s power to approve or disapprove the entire or any part of the sentence
given by the court martial, and to mitigate or remit a sentence (Article 48 and Article 49 of the
Articles of War, respectively)
o Article 48 – Power Incident to Power to Confirm
o Article 49 – Mitigation or Remission of a Sentence
W/N Garcia’s right to a speedy disposition of his case was violated – NO!
o Held: Garcia did not allege any delay during the trial only the delay in the confirmation of the
sentence by the President.
o The Court has laid down the following guidelines:
1. Length of the delay
2. Reasons for such delay
3. Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused
4. Prejudice caused by the delay
o The case has already been decided by the General Court Martial and has also been reviewed by the
proper reviewing authorities without any delay.
Petition for Certiorari is dismissed.
The time within which the petitioner was under preventive confinement should be credited to the sentence.
3
Cf. Gudani v. Senga
4
Confirmation – When Required xxx (a) Any sentence respecting a general officer.
5
Cf. Marcos v. Chief of Staff (1951)
6
Cf. Art. 10, Revised Penal Code. (RPC as supplementary to such laws)