1) In 1988, petitioner SPO1 Porferio Sumbang Jr. and his brother were accused of killing two individuals in Iloilo City. Sumbang Jr.'s case was referred to the Philippine Constabulary while his brother's case was tried in a regional trial court.
2) Sumbang Jr. argued that the inordinate delay of over 11 years of his case violated his right to a speedy trial. However, the court found that the prosecution was not at fault for the delays due to changes in jurisdiction and composition of the court martial.
3) Sumbang Jr. also claimed the court martial lost jurisdiction after 3 years per the Articles of War. The court rejected
1) In 1988, petitioner SPO1 Porferio Sumbang Jr. and his brother were accused of killing two individuals in Iloilo City. Sumbang Jr.'s case was referred to the Philippine Constabulary while his brother's case was tried in a regional trial court.
2) Sumbang Jr. argued that the inordinate delay of over 11 years of his case violated his right to a speedy trial. However, the court found that the prosecution was not at fault for the delays due to changes in jurisdiction and composition of the court martial.
3) Sumbang Jr. also claimed the court martial lost jurisdiction after 3 years per the Articles of War. The court rejected
1) In 1988, petitioner SPO1 Porferio Sumbang Jr. and his brother were accused of killing two individuals in Iloilo City. Sumbang Jr.'s case was referred to the Philippine Constabulary while his brother's case was tried in a regional trial court.
2) Sumbang Jr. argued that the inordinate delay of over 11 years of his case violated his right to a speedy trial. However, the court found that the prosecution was not at fault for the delays due to changes in jurisdiction and composition of the court martial.
3) Sumbang Jr. also claimed the court martial lost jurisdiction after 3 years per the Articles of War. The court rejected
1) In 1988, petitioner SPO1 Porferio Sumbang Jr. and his brother were accused of killing two individuals in Iloilo City. Sumbang Jr.'s case was referred to the Philippine Constabulary while his brother's case was tried in a regional trial court.
2) Sumbang Jr. argued that the inordinate delay of over 11 years of his case violated his right to a speedy trial. However, the court found that the prosecution was not at fault for the delays due to changes in jurisdiction and composition of the court martial.
3) Sumbang Jr. also claimed the court martial lost jurisdiction after 3 years per the Articles of War. The court rejected
I. Article III Section 14, Date of Commission of the Crime:
Sumbang Jr. v. General Court Martial PRO G.R. No. 140188
Facts: On May 29, 1988, herein petitioner SPO1 Porferio Sumbang Jr. and his brother Vicente Sumbang were accused with the killing of Joemaria Bedia and Joey Panes in Iloilo ciry. Since petitioner was a member of the Philippine Constabulary, his case was reffered to the PC Constabulary Judge Advocate and his brother’s was tried in the trial court. Petitioner was arraigned on November 20, 1989 and his case was then transferred to the General Court Martial in pursuance of the Philippine National Police Law passed on January 14, 1992, which provided for the integration of the Philippine Constabulary to the Philippine National Police. Meanwhile, his brother was convicted for the crime of homicide by the regional trial court. On October 15, 1999, petitioner filed a prayer for certiorari, prohibition, and temporary restraining order arising for the undue delay of his case. The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of the petitioner, hence, this further review of his case. Issues: (a) W/N the inordinate delay of petitioner’s case is in violation of his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the trial? NO. Jurisprudence dictate that a petition for dismissal based on the right to a speedy disposition of the trial would only prosper if the prosecution delays the disposition of the case without just reason. In this case, the jurisdiction of the case was moved, and more importantly, the case cannot be decided as the composition of the Court Martial keeps on changing with the original members who heard the petitioner’s case no longer appointed as members of such. Hence, it is clear that the prosecution is at no fault for the extension of the case for more than 11 years since information for double murder were filed against the petitioner. (b) W/N the Court Martial lost its jurisdiction when it failed to terminate petitioner’s case within 3 years after it assumed jurisdiction? NO. Petitioner claims that under Article 38 of the Articles of War, the General Court Martial has lost its jurisdiction as it has only 3 years to terminate a case under it. This contention is untenable as such Article refers to the time from the commission of the offense to the time of arraignment of the accused, not for the period to dispose of a case. Held: Petition is DENIED. Temporary Restraining Order is LIFTED and the respondent General Court Martial is ordered to proceed with judicious dispatch of the hearings of this case.
