SUBJECT:

TOPIC:
Date Made:
Digest Maker:
Consti 2
Right to Bail
Feb 21, 2016
Tash
CASE NAME: Commendador vs De Villa
PONENTE: Cruz,J
Case Date: August 2, 1991
Case Summary:
4 consolidated cases. The petitioners are from the military and have been refused bail.
The Supreme Court explained that bail is not traditionally recognized in the military. this
does not violate the equal protection clause because the military is not similarly situated
with others.
Rule of Law:
Provision/s most relevant to this case.
Detailed Facts:
4 consolidated cases. Because they involve the same parties and related issues
from the same inicdent
the petitioners are Armed Forces of the Philippines that have allegedly participated
in the failed coup detat incident on Dec 1 to 9, 1989.
The pre-trial investigation panel issued several letters of notice to the petitioners
for their counter-affidavits and their witnesses affidavits. All were moved to delay
and the petitioners contend that there was no pre-trial investigation done.
Charged with violations of Articles of War 67 Mutiny, AW 96 Conduct
Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman and AW 94 Various Crimes. In relation to
Art 248 of the RPC Murder
Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5, 1990. Bail denied by General-Court
Martial no. 14.He then filed with the RTC of QC a petition for ceriorari and
mandamus for provisional liberty and writ of preliminary injunction. Provisional
liberty granted to Ligot
RTC granted bail to all of them, including Lugot. Said that the GCM was
mistaken in refusing him bail because bail DOEs apply to all persons, including
military men facing court-martial proceedings. GCM 14 declared null and void . <
SC pointed out that this is WRONG.

Issue:
1. W/N there was violation of due process ( in re the pre-trial investigation)
2. Wont the denial of the right to bail to the military violate the equal protection
clause?
Holding:
1. they were given several opportunities to submit their counter-affidavits and to be
heard. They were not denied due process. However, even a failure to conduct a pretrial investigation does not deprive a general court-martial of jurisdiction
2. the right to bail is not traditionally recognized and is not available in the
military. the right of a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military
where the right to bail does not exist. The unique structure of the military
should be enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional
coverage on the right to bail.
BLOCK D 2019 1

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.

Ruling:
Respondents have not acted with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of
jurisdiction to justify the intervention of the Court and the reversal of the acts
complained of by the petitioners.
Other Opinions:
J. Sarmiento / Concurring
* right to bail should be for all persons before conviction. The only exception should be of
those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong
* We gave bail Senator Enrile and General Brawner. I find no reason why the petitioners
should not be granted the same right.

BLOCK D 2019 2