[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
198 views1 page

Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 677 SCRA 751

(1) Garcia was tried and convicted by a Special General Court Martial for failing to disclose all his assets as required by law. He argued that his two-year detention had already been served based on his six years of preventive confinement. (2) The Court ruled that Article 29 of the RPC, which allows time served in preventive confinement to be deducted from a sentence, applies to military courts. As a criminal court, the General Court Martial can apply provisions of the RPC not addressed in the Articles of War. (3) Applying Article 29 does not violate equal protection, as the Constitution allows for reasonable classification and does not require universal application of laws without distinction. Military courts can apply

Uploaded by

Patrick Silvenia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
198 views1 page

Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 677 SCRA 751

(1) Garcia was tried and convicted by a Special General Court Martial for failing to disclose all his assets as required by law. He argued that his two-year detention had already been served based on his six years of preventive confinement. (2) The Court ruled that Article 29 of the RPC, which allows time served in preventive confinement to be deducted from a sentence, applies to military courts. As a criminal court, the General Court Martial can apply provisions of the RPC not addressed in the Articles of War. (3) Applying Article 29 does not violate equal protection, as the Constitution allows for reasonable classification and does not require universal application of laws without distinction. Military courts can apply

Uploaded by

Patrick Silvenia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Garcia vs.

Executive Secretary, 677 SCRA 751

FACTS:

Garcia, tried by the Special General Court Martial NR 2, was charged with and convicted of violation of
the 96th Article of War (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman) and violation of the 97th Article
of War (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline) for failing to disclose all his assets in
his Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net worth for the year 2003 as required by RA 3019, as
amended in relation to RA 6713.

Garcia, among others, argued that the confirmation issued by the OP directing his two-year detention in a
penitentiary had already been fully served following his preventive confinement subject to Article 29 of the
RPC (Revised Penal Code). He was released on December 16, 2010 after a preventive confinement for
six years and two months. He was initially confined at his quarters at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo
before he was transferred to the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP)
Detention Center, and latter to the Camp Crame Custodial Detention Center.

Hence, on September 16, 2011, or a week after the OP confirmed the sentence of the court martial
against him, Garcia was arrested and detained and continues to be detained, for 2 years, at the maximum
security compound of the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. The OP stated that Art 29 of the RPC is not
applicable in Military Courts for it is separate and distinct from ordinary courts.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not Article 29 of the RPC is applicable in Military Courts

(2) Whether or not the application of Article 29 of the RPC in the Articles of War is in accordance with the
Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution

RULING:

(1) The Court ruled that applying the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Period of
preventive imprisonment deducted from time of imprisonment), the time within which the petitioner was
under preventive confinement should be credited to the sentence confirmed by the Office of the
President, subject to the conditions set forth by the same law.

The Court held that “the General Court Martial is a court within the strictest sense of the word and acts as
a criminal court.” As such, certain provisions of the RPC, insofar as those that are not provided in the
Articles of War and the Manual for Courts-Martial, can be supplementary. “[A]bsent any provision as to the
application of a criminal concept in the implementation and execution of the General Court Martial’s
decision, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 29 should be applied. In fact, the
deduction of petitioner’s (Garcia) period of confinement to his sentence has been recommended in the
Staff Judge Advocate Review.”

(2) The Court further held that the application of Article 29 of the RPC in the Articles of War is in
accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution. “The concept of equal justice
under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals
solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.

It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without
distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid
classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification,” held the Court.

You might also like