Case Digest

Ardina, Jenell V.
Bsc 2-6 CLAW 3
Case Digest
G.R. No. 162318 October 25, 2004
1LT. JULIUS R. NAVALES, 1LT. EMERSON L. MARGATE, 2LT. RYAN H. QUISAI, TSG. ELMER D. COLON,
CAPT. JULIUS W. ESPORO, SGT. NOLI FORONDA, SGT. GIL P. LOZADA, SGT. RAYMUND DUMAGO and PFC.
REGIE A. ALAGABAN, petitioners,
vs.
GEN. NARCISO ABAYA, as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), B.GEN. MARIANO
M. SARMIENTO, JR., as Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the AFP, and OTHER PERSONS ACTING UNDER
THEIR AUTHORITY, respondents.
CALLEJO, SR., J.
FACTS:
More than three hundred junior officers and enlisted men, mostly from the elite units of the AFP, quietly
entered the premises of the Ayala Center in Makati City. The soldiers issue a public statement through
the ABS-CBN News (ANC) network. They claimed that they went to Oakwood to air their grievances
against the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Among those grievances were: the
graft and corruption in the military, the sale of arms and ammunition to the "enemies" of the State, the
bombings in Davao City which were allegedly ordered by Brig. Gen. Victor Corpus, Chief of the ISAFP, in
order to obtain more military assistance from the United States government, and the "micro-
management" in the AFP by then Department of National Defense (DND) Secretary Angelo Reyes. Many
hours ago, a series of negotiations ensued between the soldiers and the Government team led by
Ambassador Roy Cimatu. An agreement was forged between the two groups. Shortly thereafter, Pres.
Arroyo announced that the occupation of Oakwood was over. The soldiers agreed to return to barracks
and were out of the Oakwood premises.
After the incident, all the soldiers involved in the oakwood incident were charged with the violation of
Article 134-A (coup d'etat) of the Revised Penal Code and Articles of War (AW), particularly: AW 67, AW
97, AW 96, AW 63, and AW 64.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the writs of prohibition and habeas corpus.
RULLING:
We agree with the respondents that the sweeping declaration made by the RTC (Branch 148) in the
dispositive portion of its Order dated February 11, 2004 that all charges before the court-martial against
the accused were not service-connected, but absorbed and in furtherance of the crime of coup d’etat,
cannot be given effect. For reasons which shall be discussed shortly, such declaration was made without
or in excess of jurisdiction; hence, a nullity.
G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000
JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for
allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation.
Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioner’s bail, the
MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received
an “office of protocol” from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process
under section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the
Headquarters of the ADB in the country. Based on the said protocol communication that petitioner is
immune from suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the criminal cases. The
latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. When its motion was denied,
the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC of Pasig City which set aside
the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the
motion for reconsideration was denied, the petitioner elevated the case to the SC via a petition for
review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary
investigation was held before the criminal case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner’s case is covered with immunity from legal process with regard to Section
45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Gov’t.
Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was imperative
HELD:
NO. The petitioner’s case is not covered by the immunity. Courts cannot blindly adhere to the
communication from the DFA that the petitioner is covered by any immunity. It has no binding effect in
courts. The court needs to protect the right to due process not only of the accused but also of the
prosecution. Secondly, the immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement is not absolute, but subject to
the exception that the acts must be done in “official capacity”. Hence, slandering a person could not
possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a
crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.
NO. Preliminary Investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as this case.
Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only when specifically granted
by law. The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in cases
falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ardina, Jenell V.

Bsc 2-6 CLAW 3

G.R. No. 162318 October 25, 2004

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was imperative

You might also like