COMENDADOR V DEVILLA

Facts: This is a consolidated case of members of the AFP who were charged with violation
ofArticles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman)
and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). The
petitioners were questioning the conduct of the pre-trial investigation conducted where a
motion to bail was filed but was denied. Petitioner applied for provisional liberty and
preliminary injunction before the court which was granted. However De Villa refused to
release petitioner for provisional liberty pending the resolution of the appeal they have taken
before the court invoking that military officers are an exemption from the right to bail
guaranteed by the Constitution. Decision was rendered reiterating the release for provisional
liberty of petitioners with the court stating that there is a mistake in the presumption of
respondents that bail does not apply among military men facing court martial proceeding.
Respondents now appeal befIssue: Whether or not military men are exempted from the
Constitutional guarantee on the right to bail.

Cases on constitutional law (Philippine casebook series)
A historical and juridical study of the Philippine Bill of rights

Held: The SC ruled that the bail invoked by petitioners is not available in the military as an
exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. Thus the right to a speedy trial is
given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist. Justification to
this rule involves the unique structure of the military and national security considerations
which may result to damaging precedents that mutinous soldiers will be released on
provisional liberty giving them the chance to continue their plot in overthrowing the
government. Therefore the decision of the lower court granting bail to the petitioners was
reversed.
ore the higher court.