Tan v.

Barrios, 190 SCRA 686

TITLE WILLIAM TAN, JOAQUIN TAN LEH and VICENTE TAN,

petitioners, vs. HERNANI T. BARRIOS, in his capacity as
State Prosecutor, Department of Justice, THE CITY
FISCAL OF CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, THE HONORABLE
LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO, Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Cagayan De Oro City,
and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

GR NUMBER G.R. Nos. 85481-82

DATE October 18, 1990

PONENTE

Military Tribunals/Double Jeopardy

NATURE/

KEYWORDS/
DIVISION

FACTS On 17 April 1975, William Tan, Joaquin Tan Leh and

Vicente Tan, with 12 others, were arrested and charged
before the Military Commission 1, for the crimes of: (1)
murder through the use of an unlicensed or illegally-
possessed firearm and for the killing of Florentino Lim of
the wealthy Lim Ket Kai family of Cagayan de Oro City.
Because the case was a "cause celebre" in Cagayan de
Oro City, Pres. Marcos withdrew his earlier order to
transfer the case to the civil courts. Hence, the case was
retained in the military court.

All the accused were detained without bail in the PC

Stockade in Camp Crame.

A decision entitled "Findings and Sentence," was

promulgated by the Military Commission finding 5 of the
accused guilty of murder, sentenced to suffer
imprisonment. A sixth accused was found guilty of both
murder and illegal possession of firearm, and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of death by electrocution
and 8 of the accused were acquitted.

SC promulgated the decision in Olaguer vs. Military.

6 habeas corpus petitions were filed by prisoners in the

national penitentiary, who had been tried for common
crimes and convicted by the military commissions during
 the 9-year span of official martial rule.

They were consolidated into Cruz vs. Enrile.

Sc nullified the proceedings leading to the conviction of

non-political detainees.

Fiscal Barrios filed two criminal cases against all the 15

original defendants in Tan's case including those who had
already died.

William Tan et al. filed the petition seeking the

annulment of the criminal cases.

1. W/N the reprosecution of Tan, et. al. would violate

ISSUE(S) their right to protection against double jeopardy?

Yes. The doctrine of "operative facts" applies to the

RULING(S) proceedings against the petitioners and their co-accused
before Military Commission No. 1. The principle of
absolute invalidity of the jurisdiction of the military
courts over civilians should not be allowed to obliterate
the "operative facts" that in the particular case of the
petitioners, the proceedings were fair, that there were no
serious violations of their constitutional right to due
process, and that the jurisdiction of the military
commission that heard and decided the charges against
them during the period of martial law, had been affirmed
by this Court years before the Olaguer case arose and
came before us.
Because of these established operative facts, the refiling
of the information against the petitioners would place
them in double jeopardy, in hard fact if not in
constitutional logic.

In the interest of justice and consistency, we hold that

Notes Olaguer should, in principle, be applied prospectively only
to future cases and cases still ongoing or not yet final
when that decision was promulgated. Hence, there
should be no retroactive nullification of final judgments,
whether of conviction or acquittal, rendered by military
courts against civilians before the promulgation of the
Olaguer decision. Such final sentences should not be
disturbed by the State.