Primary Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court properly took cognizance of the kidnapping case against SSgt. Osorio, and his detention was by virtue of a valid judicial process. The remedy of habeas corpus was deemed inappropriate as the restraint had become legal.

Background

The case stems from the alleged kidnapping of two University of the Philippines students, Karen E. Empeño and Sherlyn T. Cadapan, by military personnel including SSgt. Osorio and Major General Jovito Palparan. The victims were reportedly abducted from a house in Hagonoy, Bulacan, and detained in various military facilities from June 2006 to July 2007, resulting in their continuing disappearance.

Facts

• 1. SSgt. Osorio, along with Major General Palparan, was charged with kidnapping in two Informations before Branch 14, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City
• 2. The charges involved the abduction of UP students Karen E. Empeño and Sherlyn T. Cadapan
• 3. The victims were allegedly taken from a house in Barangay San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan
• 4. They were reportedly detained in various military facilities from June 2006 to July 2007
• 5. The victims' whereabouts remain unknown

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Courts-martial, not civil courts, have jurisdiction over him as he was a soldier on active duty
• 2. The offense charged was allegedly "service-connected"
• 3. Alternatively, the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan should have jurisdiction due to co-accused Major General Palparan's rank
• 4. He cannot be charged with kidnapping as it can only be committed by private individuals
• 5. He was deprived of due process without proper preliminary investigation

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. A public officer acting without authority is considered acting in a private capacity
• 2. Kidnapping is not part of military duties
• 3. Under Republic Act No. 7055, Section 1, members of the Armed Forces charged with crimes under the Revised Penal Code shall be tried by civil courts
• 4. The Regional Trial Court properly took cognizance of the case
• 5. Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy as SSgt. Osorio is detained under valid judicial process

Issues

• 1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy
• 2. Whether a civil court may take cognizance of a criminal case against a soldier on active duty
• 3. Whether a public officer may be charged with kidnapping under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court denied the petition
• 2. Habeas corpus is not proper when detention is by virtue of a valid judicial process
• 3. Under RA 7055, civil courts have jurisdiction over military personnel charged with non-service-connected crimes
• 4. Kidnapping is not a service-connected offense as defined in the Articles of War
• 5. Public officers acting without authority are considered private individuals for purposes of kidnapping charges

Doctrines

• 1. Doctrine of Civilian Supremacy over the Military - Military personnel are subject to civil court jurisdiction for non-service-connected offenses
• 2. Doctrine of Valid Restraint - Habeas corpus is not available when detention is under lawful judicial process
• 3. Doctrine of Private Capacity - Public officers acting without authority are deemed to act in private capacity

Precedents Cited

• 1. People v. Santiano (2006) - Established that public officers can be charged with kidnapping when acting outside official functions
• 2. People v. PO1 Trestiza (2011) - Reinforced that detention without legal grounds makes public officers liable for kidnapping
• 3. In re: Saliba v. Warden (2015) - Discussed proper application of habeas corpus

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Republic Act No. 7055, Section 1 - Jurisdiction over military personnel
• 2. Article 267, Revised Penal Code - Crime of kidnapping
• 3. Articles 54-70, 72-92, and 95-97 of the Articles of War - Service-connected offenses
• 4. Presidential Decree No. 1606 - Sandiganbayan jurisdiction