"x x x.
SC Upholds President's Confirmation of Sentence against Major Gen. Garcia
Posted: August 17, 2012; By Jay B. Rempillo
The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) comptroller Major General Garlos F. Garcia that sought to annul the September 9, 2011 Confirmation of Sentence by the Office of the President (OP). The sentence handed down by the Special General Court Martial No. 2 had ordered his dishonorable discharge from service, forfeiture of all his pay and allowances, and confinement for two years in a penitentiary.
In a 28-page decision penned by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the Court’s Third Division held that the OP did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Confirmation of Sentence.
The Court upheld the authority of the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to confirm the sentence. It held that the General Court Martial had jurisdiction over the case since it was indisputable that Garcia was an officer in the active service of AFP when he committed the violations until his arraignment. Garcia’s mandatory retirement on November 18, 2004 did not divest the General Court Martial of its jurisdiction. And since the General Court Martial has jurisdiction, the Court held that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, also acquired jurisdiction as mandated under Article 47 of the Articles of War.
The Court stressed that Article 48 of the Articles of War vests on the President, as Commander-in-Chief, the power to approve or disapprove the entire or any part of the sentence given by the court martial, while Article 49 of the same grants the President the power to mitigate or remit a sentence.
“Thus, the power of the President to confirm, mitigate and remit a sentence of erring military personnel is a clear recognition of the superiority of civilian authority over the military. However, although the law (Articles of War) which conferred those powers to the President is silent as to the deduction of the period of preventive confinement to the penalty imposed, as discussed earlier, such is also the right of an accused provided for by Article 29 of the RPC,” held the Court.
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 at the maximum security compound of the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. 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 Networth 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. 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.
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.”
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. “[T]he 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.
Finally, the Court found without merit Garcia’s contention that his right to a speedy disposition of his case was violated. It noted that Garcia did not allege any delay during the trial only the delay in the confirmation of the sentence by the President. The Court found such delay to Garcia’s advantage because his sentence could not be served absent such confirmation. (GR No. 198554, Garcia v. Executive Secretary, July 30, 2012)
x x x."
