DRILON V CA
common crimes before the military tribunals and
FACTS:
Sometime in 1973, the respondents were charged with double
murder of Ireneo Logno, Jr. and Lonely Chavez before the Military
Commission No. 34. On July 27, 1973, the military promulgated a
decision acquitting Raul Paredes but sentencing Rodolfo Ganzon to
life imprisonment with hard labor. Paredes was released from custody
while Ganzon served his sentence until he was released on March 25,
1978 and placed under house arrest under guard. In 1985, Ganzon
joined Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL), where he was campaign
manager.
In 1988, there was a new constitution, then Secretary of
Justice Sedfrey Ordoñez directed State Prosecutor Aurelio Trampe to
conduct preliminary investigation against the respondents Paredes
and Ganzon. The respondents moved foe dismissal because Ganzon
was alleged granted pardon by President Marcos and can no longer
be tried anew. Paredes contested that he was already acquitted.
Trampe denied their requests. The CA ruled in favor of the
respondents and granted their petition for prohibition against Trampe.
Petitioners allege that the CA in granting the prohibition
committed a grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the government may proceed criminally
against the private respondents despite a verdict earlier
rendered by the Military Commission No. 34.
2. Whether or not with respect to Ganzon, he has completed
the service of his sentence, since as we held in Cruz,
civilians serving sentences “may be given the option to
either complete the service of their sentence”, the option
Ganzon accepted, “or be tried anew by the civil courts”
which Ganzon rejected.
RULING:
1. NO. There should be no separate trial.
This court reiterated its ruling in the case of Tan vs. Barrios,
as well as Cruz vs. Enrile and Olaguer vs. Military Commission
No. 34:
 Tan: The trial of thousands of civilians as for
commissions during the 10-year period of martial
rule, which were created under general orders of
President Marcos in the exercise of his legislative
powers is an operative fact and may not be justly
ignored. The belated declaration in 1987 of the
unconstitutionality and invalidity of those
proceedings did not erase the reality of their
consequence which occurred long before the
decision in Olaguer.
 Cruz: The Court DECREES that all the petitioners
in said proceedings “who have been serving (but
not yet completed) their sentences of
imprisonment” shall have “the option either to
complete the service of their sentence, or be tried
anew by the civil courts. Upon conviction. They
should be credited in the service of their sentence
for the full period of their previous imprisonment.
Upon acquittal, they should be set free.”
Records show that Ganzon had served time until
1978, when he was placed under “house arrest” by President
Marcos and claims that in 1986, he was pardoned by the
president. Ganzon has accepted the judgment against him so
there should not be another hearing in a civilian court to risk
being convicted a second time around or be imposed a
heavier penalty (Tan ruling). There should be no
reinvestigation as this case falls squarely with Tan’s ruling.
2. YES. Ganzon has served his sentence and can no longer be
reinvestigated for the same offense, much more undergo
further imprisonment to complete his service.
Ganzon served six years in the stockades of the military
and was later on released in 1978 wherein he was put under
“house arrest”. These two facts are significant since if the
Ptesident Marcos ordered Ganzon’s release after six-year
imprisonment, the President unavoidably commuted Ganzon’s life
imprisonment to six years although he shall remain in “house
arrest” (but this is bs since he was able to go in and out of his
residence).
 If Ganzon’s sentence has been commuted, he
has served his sentence fully, therefore can no
longer be reinvestigated or as Cruz case
decreed, be made to “complete the service of his
sentence”
 Under 1973 Constitution, the “pardoning power”
of the President (grant reprieves, commutations,
and pardons, remit fines and forfeitures) is final
and unappealable so is commutation of sentence
in which Chief Executive reduces a sentence. It
extinguishes criminal liability partially and has the
effect of changing the penalty to a lesser one.
 In Ganzon’s case, commutation need not be in a
specific form, it is sufficient that he was voluntarily
released in 1978 with no terms and conditions
except to remain in house arrest (this is not a
continuation of his sentence since there is no
such penalty, this is just pursuant to Marcos’ vast
arrest and commitment powers during martial
rule).