FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA and CAPT.
FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, respondents.
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Comendador vs. De Villa
*
G.R. No. 93177. August 2, 1991.
BGEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, BGEN. MARIELO
BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, CAPT. MANUEL
ISON, COL. LUISITO SANCHEZ, LTC. ROMELINO
GOJO, LTC. ARSENIO TECSON, LTC. RAFAEL
GALVEZ, LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO, LTC. ERICSON
AURELIO, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT, LTC. FRANKLIN
BRAWNER, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS, MAJ. CESAR
DE LA PEÑA, MAJ. LEUVINO VALENCIA, CAPT.
FLORENCIO FLORES, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO, CAPT.
DANILO LIM, CAPT. ELMER AMON, CAPT. VERGEL
NACINO, and LT. JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. GEN.
RENATO S. DE VILLA, CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, THE PTI
INVESTIGATING PANEL COMPOSED OF: COL.
MANUEL S. MENDIOLA, COL. VIRTUD NORBERTO L.
DAGZA, MAJ. FELIX V. BALDONADO and MAJ.
ESTELITO L. PORNEA, and GENERAL COURT-
MARTIAL NO. 14 COMPOSED OF: BGEN. DEMETRIO
CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL.
ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY
_______________
* EN BANC.
VOL. 200, AUGUST 2, 1991
Comendador vs. De Villa
G.R. No. 95020. August 2, 1991.*
BGEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A.
MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI,
COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA,
and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, petitioners, vs.
HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge,
Branch 104, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Q.C., LTC.
JACINTO LIGOT, PA., respondents.
G.R. No. 96948. August 2, 1991.*
BGEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, BGEN. MARCELO
BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO PN, CAPT.
MANUEL ISON PN, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO PN (M),
LTC. ARSENIO TECSON PA, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ PA,
LTC. TIBURCIO FUSILLERO PA, LTC. ERICSON
AURELIO PA, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT, PA, LTC.
FRANKLIN BRAWNER PA, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS
PA, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PENA PN (M): MAJ. LEUVINO
VALENCIA PA, CAPT. FLORENCIO FLORES PA, CAPT.
JAIME JUNIO PA, CAPT. DANILO LIM PA, CAPT.
ELMER AMON PAF, CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, and LT.
JOEY SARROZA, petitioners, vs. BGEN. DEMETRIO
CAMUA, COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL.
ERNESTO B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY
FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA, and CAPT.
FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, PRESIDENT AND
MEMBERS OF GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14,
respondents.
G.R. No. 97454. August 2, 1991.*
81
AFP CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN RODOLFO BIAZON,
81 DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF MAJOR GEN. ALEXANDER
AGUIRRE, PNP DIRECTOR GENERAL MAJOR GEN.
CESAR NAZARENO and LT. COL. ALBERTO OLARIO,
Commanding Officer of the PNP/INP Detention
Center/Jail, petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City,
Branch 86, CAPTAIN
82
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Comendador vs. De Villa
REYNALDO S. RAFAEL, 1LT. SERVANDO A. BAOANAN
PN(M), 1LT. WILFREDO JIMENEZ PAF, 1LT.
ATANACIO T. MACALAN, JR PM(M), 2LT. ELISEO T.
RASCO PC, 2LT. JONAS CALLEJA PC, 2LT. JAIRUS JS.
GELVEZON III PM(M), 2LT. JOSELITO CABREROS
PM(M), 2LT. MEMEL ROJAS PN(M) and 2LT.
HERMINIO L. CANTACO PC, respondents.
Constitution; Bail; Constitution grants the right to bail to all
persons with the defined exception is applicable and covers all
military men facing court-martial proceedings.—On August 22,
1990, the trial court rendered judgment inter alia: (a) Declaring,
that Section 13, Article III of the Constitution granting the right
to bail to all persons with the defined exception is applicable and
covers all military men facing court-martial proceedings.
Accordingly, the assailed orders of General Court-Martial No. 14
denying bail to petitioner and intervenors on the mistaken
assumption that bail does not apply to military men facing court-
martial proceedings on the ground that there is no precedent, are
hereby set aside and declared null and void. Respondent General
Court-Martial No. 14 is hereby directed to conduct proceedings on
the applications of bail of the petitioner, interve-nors and which
may as well include other persons facing charges before General
Court-Martial No. 14.
Same; Bill of Rights; Due Process; Due process is satisfied as
long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not
availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violation of the
Bill of Rights.—Due process is satisfied as long as the party is
accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is
deemed waived or forfeited without violation of the Bill of Rights.
Criminal Procedure; Pre-trial; Jurisdiction; Pre-trial
investigation is directory, not mandatory, and in no way affects the
jurisdiction of a court martial.—There was in our view
substantial compliance with Article of War 71 by the PTI Panel.
Moreover, it is now settled that “even a failure to conduct, a pre-
trial investigation does not deprive a general court-martial of
jurisdiction.” x x x But even a failure to conduct a pre-trial
investigation does not deprive a general court-martial of
jurisdiction. The better accepted concept of pre-trial investigation
is that it is directory, not mandatory, and in no way affects the
jurisdiction of a court-martial.
Statutory Construction; It is a basic canon of statutory
construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself
ceases;
83
VOL. 200, AUGUST 2, 1991 83
Comendador vs. De Villa
Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex.—It is a basic canon of
statutory construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the
law itself ceases. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex. This
principle is also expressed in the maxim ratio legis est anima: the
reason of law is its soul.
Jurisdiction; Certiorari; Habeas Corpus, Quo warranto;
Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus against inferior court and other bodies
and on petition for habeas corpus and quo warranto.—The
Regional Trial Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies
and on petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto. In the
absence of a law providing that the decisions, orders and ruling of
a court-martial or the Office of the Chief of Staff can be
questioned only before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court, we hold that the Regional Trial Court can exercise similar
jurisdiction.
Constitution; Bill of Rights; Bail; Equal Protection; That
denial from the military of the right to bail would violate the equal
protection clause is not acceptable.—The argument that denial
from the military of the right to bail would violate the equal
protection clause is not acceptable. This guaranty requires equal
treatment only of persons or things similarly situated and does
not apply where the subject of the treatment is substantially
different from others. The accused officers can complain if they
are denied bail and other members of the military are not. But
they cannot say they have been discriminated against because
they are not allowed the same right that is extended to civilians.
Remedial Law; Certiorari; Jurisdiction; Appeal; A petition for
certiorari in order to prosper, must be based on jurisdictional
grounds because, as long as respondent acted with jurisdiction,
any error committed by him or in the exercise thereof will amount
to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed
or corrected only by appeal.—Regarding the propriety of the
petitions at bar, it is well to reiterate the following observations of
the Court in Arula: The referral of charges to a court-martial
involves the exercise of judgment and discretion (AW 71). A
petition for certiorari, in order to prosper, must be based on
jurisdictional grounds because, as long as the respondent acted
with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise
thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judg-

84

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Comendador vs. De Villa

ment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal. Even an

abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance
of a writ of certiorari.

G.R. No. 93177:

PETITION for certiorari prohibition and mandamus to

review the decision of the General Court Martial No. 14.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

G.R. No. 96948:

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the

General Court Martial No. 14.