G.R. No.

L-1988 February 24, 1948

JESUS MIQUIABAS vs. COMMANDING GENERAL, PHILIPPINE-RYUKYUS COMMAND, UNITED STATES ARMY

FACTS:

Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee of the United States Army in the Philippines, who has been charged with
disposing in the Port of Manila Area of things belonging to the United States Army, in violation of the 94th Article of War of the United
States. He has been arrested and a General Court-Martial appointed by respondent tried and found him guilty and sentenced him to
15 years imprisonment.

As a rule, the Philippines has jurisdiction over all offenses committed within its territory, but it may, by treaty or by agreement,
consent that the United States or any other foreign nation, shall exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses committed within certain
portions of said territory.

On March 11, 1947, the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America, entered into an agreement
concerning military bases.1
Under paragraph 1 (a), the General Court-Martial would have jurisdiction over the criminal case against petitioner if the offense had
been committed within a base.

Under paragraph 1 (b), if the offense had been committed outside a base, still the General Court-Martial would have jurisdiction if
the offense had been committed by a "member of the armed forces of the United States" there being no question that the offended
party in this case is the United States. It is not necessary therefore, to consider whether the offense is against "the security of the
United States".

Under paragraph 1 (c), or whether petitioner committed it in "the actual performance of a specific military duty" or in time of a
declared "national emergency" under paragraph 4, or whether we are still in a state of war under paragraph 6, for in all these
instances the military jurisdiction depends also upon whether the offender is a member of the armed forces of the United States. We
shall then determine in this case (1) whether the offense has been committed within or without a base, and, in the second instance,
(2) whether the offender is or is not a member of the armed forces of the United States.

As to the first question, Article XXVI of the Agreement provides that "bases are those area named in Annex A and Annex B and such
additional areas as may be acquired for military purposes pursuant to the terms of this Agreement." Among the areas specified in
Annexes A and B, there is none that has reference to the Port Area of Manila where the offense has allegedly been committed. On
the contrary, it appears in Annex A that "army communications system" is included, but with "the deletion of all stations in the Port of
Manila Area."
Paragraph 2 of Article XXI is invoked by respondent.

1
JURISDICTION
1. The Philippines consents that the United States shall have the right to exercise jurisdiction over the following offenses:
(a) Any offense committed by any person within any base except where the offender and offended parties are both Philippine
citizens (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty) or the offense is against the security of the
Philippines;
(b) Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States in which the offended
party is also a member of the armed forces of the United States; and
(c) Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States against the security of the
United States.
2. The Philippines shall have the right to exercise jurisdiction over all other offenses committed outside the bases by any member of the
armed forces of the United States.
3. Whenever for special reasons the United States may desire not to exercise the jurisdiction reserved to it in paragraphs 1 and 6 of this
Article, the officer holding the offender in custody shall so notify the fiscal (prosecuting attorney) of the city or province in which the offense
has been committed within ten days after his arrest, and in such case the Philippines shall exercise jurisdiction.
4. Whenever for special reasons the Philippines may desire not to exercise the jurisdiction reserved to it in paragraph 2 of this Article, the
fiscal (prosecuting attorney) of the city or province where the offense has been committed shall so notify the officer holding the offender in
custody within ten days after his arrest, and in such a case the United States shall be free to exercise jurisdiction. If any offense falling
under paragraph 2 of this article is committed by any member of the armed forces of the United States.
(a) While engaged in the actual performance of a specific military duty, or
(b) during a period of national emergency declared by either Government and the fiscal (prosecuting attorney) so finds from the
evidence, he shall immediately notify the officer holding the offender in custody that the United States is free to exercise
jurisdiction. In the event the fiscal (prosecuting attorney) finds that the offense was not committed in the actual performance of a
specific military duty, the offender's commanding officer shall have the right to appeal from such finding to the Secretary of
Justice within ten days from the receipt of the decision of the fiscal and the decision of the Secretary of Justice shall be final.
5. In all cases over which the Philippines exercises jurisdiction the custody of the accused, pending trial and final judgment, shall be
entrusted without delay to the commanding officer of the nearest base, who shall acknowledge in writing that such accused has been
delivered to him for custody pending trial in a competent court of the Philippines and that he will be held ready to appear and will be
produced before said court when required by it. The commanding officer shall be furnished by the fiscal (prosecuting attorney) with a copy
of the information against the accused upon the filing of the original in the competent court.
6. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, it is naturally agreed that in time of war the United States shall have the right to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over any offenses which may be committed by members of the armed forces of the United States in the Philippines.
7. The United States agrees that it will not grant asylum in any of the bases to any person fleeing from the lawful jurisdiction of the
Philippines. Should such person be found in any base, he will be surrendered on demand to the competent authorities of the Philippines.
8. In every case in which jurisdiction over an offense is exercised by the United States, the offended party may institute a separate civil
action against the offender in the proper court of the Philippines to enforce the civil liability which under the laws of the Philippines may
arise from the offense.
The subject matter of this article (Paragraph 2 of Article XXI), as indicated by its heading, is "Temporary Installations." Paragraph 1
refers to temporary quarters and installations existing outside the bases specified in Annex A and Annex B, which may be retained
by the United States armed forces for such reasonable time as may be necessary not exceeding two years in duration, extendible
for not more than three years, the extension not being applicable to existing temporary quarters and installations within the limits of
the City of Manila.

The next inquiry is whether or not the offender may be considered as a member of the armed forces of the United States under
Article XIII, paragraph 1 (b).

As above stated, petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee of the United States Army in the Philippines. Under the terms
of the Agreement, a civilian employee cannot be considered as a member of the armed forces of the United States. Articles XI, XVI
and XVIII of the Agreement make mention of civilian employees separately from members of the armed forces of the United States,
which is a conclusive indication that under said Agreement armed forces do not include civilian employees.

Respondent invokes Articles II of the Articles of War of the United States, which enumerates, among the persons subject to military
law, persons accompanying or serving with the armies of the United States. But this case should be decided not under the Articles of
War, but under the terms of the Base Agreement between the United States and the Philippines. And not because a person is
subject to military law under the Articles of War does he become, for that reason alone, a member of the armed forces under the
Base Agreement. And even under the Articles of War, the mere fact that a civilian employee is in the service of the United States
Army does not make him a member of the armed forces of the United States. Otherwise, it would have been necessary for said
Article to enumerate civilian employees separately from members of the armed forces of the United States.

Respondent maintains that petitioner has no cause of action because the Secretary of Justice had not notified the officer holding the
petitioner in custody whether or not the Philippines desired to retain jurisdiction under Article XXI, paragraph 3, of the Military Base
Agreement. It is sufficient to state in this connection that in cases like the present where the offender is a civilian employee and not
a member of the Unites States armed forces, no waiver can be made either by the prosecuting attorney of by the Secretary of
Justice, under paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article XIII in connection with paragraph 3 of Article XXI, of the Agreement.

ISSUE: WON the offense has been committed within a US base; thus, giving the US jurisdiction over the case. NO

WON the offender is a member of the US armed forces. NO

HELD:

(1) The Port of Manila Area where the offense was committed is not within a US base for it is not named in Annex A or B of Article
XXVI of the Military Base Agreement (MBA) and is merely part of the temporary quarters located within presented limits of the city of
Manila. Moreover,
extended installations and temporary quarters are not considered to have the same jurisdictional capacity as permanent bases and
are governed by Article XIII paragraphs 2 and 4. The offense at bar, therefore is beyond the jurisdiction of military courts.

The General Court-Martial appointed by respondent has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for the offense allegedly committed by him
and, consequently, the judgment rendered by said court sentencing the petitioner to 15 years' imprisonment is null and void for lack
of jurisdiction.
It is ordered that petitioner be released immediately by respondent without prejudice to any criminal action which may be instituted
in the proper court of the Philippines.

(2) Under the MBA, a civilian employee is not considered as a member of the US armed forces. Even under the articles of war, the
mere fact that a civilian employee is in the service of the US Army does not make him a member of the armed forces.