Quilona vs. General Court Martial et al.

Under Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975, criminal cases against PC-INP members who have not yet been arraigned upon the effectivity of the law must be transferred to the proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge; a court martial that accelerates arraignment on the eve of the law's effectivity, knowing that the law will divest it of jurisdiction, commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The civilian character of the Philippine National Police is declared paramount by the law, and Section 46 must be read in light of that declared policy.

Patrolman Oscar Quilona was a policeman assigned to the Western Police District and was charged before a General Court Martial with two counts of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in a case entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Patrolman Oscar Quiloña." The respondent General Court Martial was constituted pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1850, which governed courts-martial for PC-INP members. Republic Act No. 6975, creating the Philippine National Police, was approved by the President on 13 December 1990, published in two national newspapers of general circulation on 17 December 1990, and by its Section 96 was to take effect fifteen days following such publication, or on 1 January 1991. The law expressly declared the national scope and civilian character of the police force to be paramount and provided for the transfer of criminal cases against its members to civilian courts.

Patrolman Oscar Quilona was a policeman assigned to the Western Police District and was charged before the respondent General Court Martial with the crime of murder on two counts under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in a case entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Patrolman Oscar Quiloña."

On 14 December 1990, petitioner, through counsel, wrote a letter to President Corazon C. Aquino expressing his desire to be tried by a civilian court and seeking a waiver of military jurisdiction, for the reason, among others, that the enactment of the Philippine National Police Law created his honest belief that he should now be under the actual and real jurisdiction of a civilian court. At the scheduled arraignment on 15 December 1990, petitioner's counsel manifested to the respondent General Court Martial his client's desire not to be arraigned and to be tried by a civilian court, furnishing the court martial a copy of petitioner's letter to the President. The petitioner's arraignment was reset.

At the next scheduled arraignment on 28 December 1990, petitioner filed a pleading denominated as "Motion for this Honorable Court Martial to Inhibit Itself from Pursuing the Arraignment of the Accused and to Have His Case Investigated by the Civilian Prosecutor or at Least Tried by a Civilian Court." Although the motion was set for oral argument on 3 January 1991, respondent court decided to have it argued on the day it was filed — 28 December 1990. After a ten-minute closed-door deliberation among the members of the respondent court martial, it resumed session and denied petitioner's motion. Petitioner, through counsel, moved for reconsideration and asked that he be allowed to file his arguments on the next day. Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to read the charges and specifications to petitioner. Petitioner refused to enter a plea and manifested that he would elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, respondent court ordered the entry of a "Plea of Not Guilty" and set the trial of the case for 25 January 1991.

Republic Act No. 6975, creating the Philippine National Police, had been approved by the President on 13 December 1990 and published in "The Philippine Star" and "Times Journal" on 17 December 1990; under Section 96 of the law, it was to take effect fifteen days following publication, or on 1 January 1991. By Section 46, criminal cases involving PNP members were placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts, with courts-martial continuing to try only PC-INP members already arraigned, and criminal cases against PC-INP members not yet arraigned upon the effectivity of the Act to be transferred to the proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge.

• Civilian Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that the enactment of the Philippine National Police Law created his honest belief that he should now be under the actual and real jurisdiction of a civilian court, and he accordingly sought a waiver of military jurisdiction through a letter to the President dated 14 December 1990.
• Inhibition of the Court Martial: Petitioner argued that the respondent court martial acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion asking it to inhibit itself from pursuing his arraignment and to have his case investigated by the civilian prosecutor or at least tried by a civilian court.
• Absence of Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy: Petitioner alleged that there was no appeal, nor any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except through a petition for certiorari and prohibition, and prayed that the arraignment and the proceedings taken by respondents be annulled and that respondents be prohibited from trying him.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Arraignment: Whether the respondent court martial acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to or in excess of jurisdiction in proceeding with the arraignment of the petitioner on 28 December 1990 despite the pendency of his motion to inhibit and the imminent effectivity of Republic Act No. 6975.
• Jurisdiction Over PC-INP Members: Whether jurisdiction over the criminal case against petitioner, a PC-INP member not yet arraigned upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6975, belongs to the civilian courts rather than to the court martial.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Arraignment: Yes. The respondent court martial acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to or in excess of jurisdiction in proceeding with the arraignment of petitioner on 28 December 1990, having advanced the hearing on his motion and arraigned him on the same day despite his refusal to plead.
• Jurisdiction Over PC-INP Members: Civilian courts. Under Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975, criminal cases against PC-INP members not yet arraigned upon the effectivity of the Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge, the law's declared policy making the civilian character of the police paramount.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Arraignment: Although Republic Act No. 6975 was not yet in effect when petitioner was arraigned on 28 December 1990, the respondent court martial knew or should have known that the Act had already been signed or approved by the President on 13 December 1990, that it had been published in two national newspapers of general circulation on 17 December 1990, and that it would take effect on 1 January 1991. It was precisely for this reason that the respondent court martial decided to have petitioner's motion to inhibit argued on 28 December 1990 and thereafter arraigned him on the same day despite his vehement refusal to enter a plea. Under the circumstances obtaining, the court martial acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to or in excess of jurisdiction in proceeding with the arraignment on 28 December 1990.

• Jurisdiction Over PC-INP Members: Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975 provides that, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP members shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts; that courts-martial appointed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1850 shall continue to try PC-INP members who have already been arraigned, to include appropriate actions thereon by the reviewing authorities pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 408, otherwise known as the Articles of War, as amended by Executive Order No. 178, otherwise known as the Manual for Courts-Martial; and that criminal cases against PC-INP members who may not yet have been arraigned upon the effectivity of the Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge. Section 46 should be read in the light of the policy of the State declared under Section 2 of the Act, which declares it the policy of the State to promote peace and order, ensure public safety, and further strengthen local government capability through the establishment of a highly efficient and competent police force that is national in scope and civilian in character, and which provides that the national scope and civilian character of the police force shall be paramount, that no element of the police force shall be military, and that no position therein shall be occupied by active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The civilian character with which the PNP is expressly invested is declared by Republic Act No. 6975 as paramount, and, in line therewith, the law mandates the transfer of criminal cases against its members to civilian courts. By closing its eyes to the provisions of Sections 2 and 46, indelicately asserting its military jurisdiction rather than letting go of the case to civilian jurisdiction to effectuate and give flesh to the avowed policy and intent of the law, the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion.

• Civilian Character of the Philippine National Police — Republic Act No. 6975 declares it the policy of the State to establish a police force that is national in scope and civilian in character, and expressly provides that this national scope and civilian character shall be paramount, that no element of the police force shall be military, and that no position therein shall be occupied by active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Court applied this declared policy as the controlling interpretive backdrop for Section 46, holding that the provision on transfer of criminal cases against PC-INP members to civilian courts must be read in light of the law's avowed intent to invest the police force with a civilian character.
• Jurisdiction Over Unarraigned PC-INP Members Under Section 46 — Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975 vests exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP members in the regular courts, subject to two provisos: (a) courts-martial appointed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1850 shall continue to try PC-INP members who have already been arraigned, including appropriate actions thereon by the reviewing authorities pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War), as amended by Executive Order No. 178 (Manual for Courts-Martial); and (b) criminal cases against PC-INP members who have not yet been arraigned upon the effectivity of the Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge. The Court applied the second proviso to petitioner, who had not been validly arraigned prior to the law's effectivity, and ordered the transfer of his case to the appropriate city or provincial prosecutor.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting to Excess of Jurisdiction — A court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to or in excess of jurisdiction when it asserts a jurisdiction that the law has withdrawn or is about to withdraw from it, particularly where it accelerates proceedings to preempt the effectivity of a statute divesting it of authority. The Court found that the respondent court martial, knowing that Republic Act No. 6975 had been signed on 13 December 1990, published on 17 December 1990, and would take effect on 1 January 1991, deliberately advanced the hearing on petitioner's motion to inhibit and arraigned him on the same day despite his refusal to plead, thereby acting with grave abuse of discretion.

• "Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP members shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts; Provided, That the courts-martial appointed pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1850 shall continue to try PC-INP members who have already been arraigned, to include appropriate actions thereon by the reviewing authorities pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 408, otherwise known as the Articles of War, as amended by Executive Order No. 178, otherwise known as the Manual for Courts-Martial: Provided, further, that criminal cases against PC-INP members who may have not yet been arraigned upon the effectivity of this Act shall be transferred to the proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge." — This is the full text of Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975, the controlling jurisdictional provision whose second proviso supplied the basis for transferring petitioner's case from the court martial to the civilian prosecutor.
• "Although Republic Act No. 6975 was not yet in effect when petitioner was arraigned on 28 December 1990, nevertheless, respondent court martial knew or should have known that the said Act had already been signed or approved by the President on 13 December 1990 and that the same was published in two (2) national newspaper of general circulation on 17 December 1990 and that it would take effect on 1 January 1991." — This passage supplies the factual predicate for the finding of grave abuse of discretion, establishing that the court martial was on notice of the imminent divestiture of its jurisdiction when it proceeded with the arraignment.
• "The civilian character with which the PNP is expressly invested is declared by RA 6975 as paramount, and, in line therewith, the law mandates the transfer of criminal cases against its members to civilian courts." — This states the ratio for reading Section 46 in harmony with the law's declaration of policy under Section 2, and is the formulation commonly cited for the civilian-character principle governing the PNP.
• "By closing its eyes to the provisions of Sections 2 and 46, indelicately asserting its military jurisdiction rather than letting go of the case to civilian jurisdiction to effectuate and give flesh to the avowed policy and intent of the law, respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion." — This is the Court's concluding characterization of the court martial's conduct, tying the finding of grave abuse of discretion directly to the disregard of the statute's policy and jurisdictional provisions.

• Section 46, Republic Act No. 6975 (Philippine National Police Law) — Vests exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP members in the regular courts, allows courts-martial to continue trying PC-INP members already arraigned, and requires the transfer of criminal cases against PC-INP members not yet arraigned upon the Act's effectivity to the proper city or provincial prosecutor or municipal trial court judge. Applied to petitioner, who was not yet arraigned upon the law's effectivity, thereby requiring transfer of his case to the civilian prosecutor.
• Section 2, Republic Act No. 6975 — Declares the policy of the State to establish a police force that is national in scope and civilian in character, provides that such national scope and civilian character shall be paramount, that no element of the police force shall be military, and that no position therein shall be occupied by active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Used by the Court as the interpretive lens for Section 46, reinforcing the mandate to transfer criminal cases against PNP members to civilian courts.
• Section 96, Republic Act No. 6975 — Provides that the Act shall take effect fifteen days following its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation; Republic Act No. 6975 was published in "The Philippine Star" and "Times Journal" on 17 December 1990, fixing its effectivity on 1 January 1991. This provision established that petitioner's 28 December 1990 arraignment preceded the law's effectivity, making the second proviso of Section 46 applicable to him.
• Section 23, Republic Act No. 6975 — Establishes the Philippine National Police, initially consisting of members of the police force integrated into the Integrated National Police pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 765, and the officers and enlisted personnel of the Philippine Constabulary. Cited to identify petitioner's status as a member of the police force covered by the Act.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder, the crime on two counts with which petitioner was charged before the respondent General Court Martial.
• Presidential Decree No. 1850 — The authority pursuant to which courts-martial are appointed to try PC-INP members, referenced in Section 46 as the basis for the continuing jurisdiction of courts-martial over members already arraigned.
• Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War), as amended by Executive Order No. 178 (Manual for Courts-Martial) — Referenced in Section 46 as governing the appropriate actions of reviewing authorities over cases of PC-INP members already arraigned and tried by courts-martial.

Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ.