Osorio Digest

Facts
● SSgt. Osorio was charged in two (2) Informations before Branch 14, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City for
allegedly kidnapping University of the Philippines students Karen E. Empeño Sherlyn T. Cadapan (Cadapan).
● December 19, 2011: Warrants of arrest were issued against SSgt. Osorio.
● December 20, 2011, at about 3pm: SSgt. Osorio was arrested by Colonel Herbert Yambing, the Provost Marshall
General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and was turned over to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Unit
Group in Camp Crame, Quezon City and was detained in Bulacan Provincial Jail. He was later transferred to the
Philippine Army Custodial Center in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.
● July 21, 2015: SSgt. Osorio filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Court of Appeals, on grounds that he
was being illegally deprived of his liberty.
● Argument of Petitioner: Courts-martial, not a civil court such as the Regional Trial Court, had jurisdiction to try
the criminal case considering that he was a soldier on active duty and that the offense charged was allegedly “service-
connected.” In the alternative, SSgt. Osorio argued that the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation and the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to try the case because among his co- accused was Major General
Palparan, a public officer with salary grade higher than 28. Further, he contended that he could not be charged with the
felony of kidnapping and serious illegal detention because under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the felony
may only be committed by a private individual, not a ranking officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
● CA Ruling:
○ SSgt. Osorio’s confinement was “by virtue of a valid judgment or a judicial process.” Under Republic Act
No. 7055, Section 1, a crime penalized under the Revised Penal Code, even if committed by a member of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is to be tried “by the proper civil court.” The only exception to this
rule is when the crime is “service- connected,” i.e., those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and
Articles 95 to 97 of the Articles of War, in which case, the courts-martial have jurisdiction. Since the crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is punished under the Revised Penal Code and is not “service-
connected,” the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City properly took cognizance of the case and,
consequently, the warrants of arrest against SSgt. Osorio were issued under a valid judicial process.
○ Denied SSgt. Osorio’s Petition for Habeas Corpus as habeas corpus is not a “writ of error” and questions
relating to procedure or merits of the case cannot be addressed in habeas corpus proceedings.
● SSgt. Osorio filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
W/N whether or not a writ of habeas corpus is petitioner SSgt. Edgardo L. Osorio’s proper remedy.
 Whether or not a civil court may take cognizance of a criminal case against a soldier on active duty;
 whether or not a public officer may be charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, considering that the provision speaks of “any private individual.”
No.
The restraint of liberty need not be confined to any offense so as to entitle a person to the writ. Habeas corpus may be
availed of as a post-conviction remedy or when there is an alleged violation of the liberty of abode. A writ of habeas
corpus may no longer be issued if the person allegedly deprived of liberty is restrained under a lawful process or order of
the court.
The Regional Trial Court properly took cognizance of the kidnapping case against him. Republic Act (RA) No. 7055,
Section 1 provides that if the accused is a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the crime involved is
one punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), civil courts shall have the authority to hear, try, and decide the case.
Under this Section, the only time courts-martial may assume jurisdiction is if, before arraignment, the civil court
determines that the offense is “service-connected.”
SSgt. Osorio was charged with kidnapping, a crime punishable under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying
Republic Act No. 7055, Section 1, the case shall be tried by a civil court, specifically by the Regional Trial Court, which
has jurisdiction over the crime of kidnapping. Contrary to SSgt. Osorio’s claim, the offense he committed was not service-
connected. The case filed against him is none of those enumerated under Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles
95 to 97 of the Articles of War.
Further, kidnapping is not part of the functions of a soldier. Even if a public officer has the legal duty to detain a person,
the public officer must be able to show the existence of legal grounds for the detention. Without these legal grounds, the
public officer is deemed to have acted in a private capacity and is considered a “private individual.” The public officer
becomes liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention punishable by reclusion perpetua, not with arbitrary detention
punished with significantly lower penalties.
The arrest warrants against SSgt. Osorio were issued by the court that has jurisdiction over the offense charged. SSgt.
Osorio’s restraint has become legal; hence, the remedy of habeas corpus is already moot and academic.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Resolutions dated July 27, 2015 and February 22,
2016 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 141332 are AFFIRMED.
Separate Opinions
● N/A

Osorio Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osorio Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osorio Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.