Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DE
VILLA, et. al., respondents, G.R. No. 93177 August 2, 1991, (CRUZ, J.)
The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 who are officers of the AFP were
directed to appear in person before the Pre-Trial Investigating Officers for the alleged
participation the failed coup on December 1 to 9, 1989. Petitioners now claim that
there was no pre-trial investigation of the charges as mandated by Article of War 71.
A motion for dismissal was denied. Now, their motion for reconsideration. Alleging
denial of due process.
Facts:
This is a consolidated case of members of the AFP who were charged with
violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an
Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder).
The petitioners were questioning the conduct of the pre-trial investigation
conducted where a motion to bail was filed but was denied. Petitioner applied
for provisional liberty and preliminary injunction before the court which was
granted.
However De Villa refused to release petitioner for provisional liberty pending
the resolution of the appeal they have taken before the court invoking that
military officers are an exemption from the right to bail guaranteed by the
Constitution.
Decision was rendered reiterating the release for provisional liberty of
petitioners with the court stating that there is a mistake in the presumption
of respondents that bail does not apply among military men facing court
martial proceeding. Respondents now appeal before the higher court.
Issue:
1. Whether or not there was a denial of due process
2. Whether or not military men are exempted from the Constitutional
guarantee on the right to bail.
Held:
1. NO denial of due process.
Petitioners were given several opportunities to present their side at the pre-trial
investigation, first at the scheduled hearing of February 12, 1990, and then again
after the denial of their motion of February 21, 1990, when they were given until
March 7, 1990, to submit their counter-affidavits.
On that date, they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration which they were
again asked to submit in writing. They had been expressly warned in the subpoena