GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY G.R. No. 198554 July 30, 2012 677 SCRA 750 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 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 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; and (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 Constitut Constitution ion 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 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, cer tain 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 application of a criminal concept concept in the implementation implementatio n and execution of the th e 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.
