Scribd
Upload
929 views1 page

Martin V Ver Digest

Eulalia Martin filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of her husband Pvt. Francisco Martin who was arrested and confined for allegedly selling grenades from the military to a civilian. Pvt. Martin claimed his continued confinement was illegal since he was discharged from the military service. However, the court held that Pvt. Martin could still be subject to military law and prosecution for offenses committed during his military service. The court also concluded that Pvt. Martin was not denied his right to a speedy trial, as delays in filing charges are not counted against this right, and determining if this right was violated depends on the circumstances of each case.

Uploaded by

Jay Sosa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
929 views1 page

Martin V Ver Digest

Eulalia Martin filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of her husband Pvt. Francisco Martin who was arrested and confined for allegedly selling grenades from the military to a civilian. Pvt. Martin claimed his continued confinement was illegal since he was discharged from the military service. However, the court held that Pvt. Martin could still be subject to military law and prosecution for offenses committed during his military service. The court also concluded that Pvt. Martin was not denied his right to a speedy trial, as delays in filing charges are not counted against this right, and determining if this right was violated depends on the circumstances of each case.

Uploaded by

Jay Sosa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

EULALIA MARTIN vs. GEN. FABIAN VER, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES and GEN.

HAMILTON DIMAYA, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL PLANA, J.: Facts: (This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by Eulalia Martin on behalf of her husband, Pvt. Francisco Martin.) Pvt. Martin was an enlisted man in the Philippine Army he allegedly sold two grenades to one Rogelio Cruz at P50.00 each, one of which exploded during a picnic in Laoag City causing the death of three persons. After investigation the Ministry of National Defense which referred the matter to the Chief of Staff, AFP, who in turn directed the Inspector General to conduct another investigation. On May 5, 1981, Pvt. Martin was arrested and confined (restricted to barracks) at Fort Bonifacio pursuant to Article 70 of the Articles of War. The following year, he was discharged from the service. He concludes that his continued is illegal because he is not a member of military at that time. He claims that he has been denied his constitutional right of speedy trial because the charges against him were filed only about 1 year and 7 months after his arrest. Issue: Was the respondent denied of the speedy trial? Held: We conclude that despite his discharge from the military service, the petitioner is still subject to military law for the purpose of prosecuting him for illegal disposal of military property, and his preventive detention thereunder pending trial and punishment for the said offense committed when he was in the military service is lawful. It would indeed be parodoxical if military men who are called upon in times of the gravest national crises to lay down their lives in defense of peace and freedom would be the very people to be singled out for denial of the fundamental rights for which they risk their lives. No. There was no such denial. As stated by this Court in a per curiam decision: "x... the test of violation of the right to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the delay from the time the information is filed, not before the filing. The delay in the filing of the information, which in the instant case has not been without reasonable cause, is therefore not to be reckoned with in determining whether there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial." (People vs. Orsal, 113 SCRA 226 at 236.) At any rate, whether or not one has been denied speedy trial is not susceptible to precise quantification. At best, the constitutional right of speedy trial is relative, consistent with reasonable delays, taking into account the circumstances of each case. WHEREFORE, the petition for habeas corpus is dismissed.

You might also like