Gonzales v. Abaya
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 26, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo received intelligence reports of AFP members abandoning their posts to destabilize the government. The following day, over 300 armed junior officers and enlisted men, led by Navy Lt. (SG) Antonio Trillanes IV, occupied the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments, disarmed security guards, and planted explosives. They announced grievances against the administration, declared withdrawal of support, and demanded the President's resignation. President Arroyo declared a state of rebellion and issued General Order No. 4. After negotiations, the soldiers surrendered. The National Bureau of Investigation recommended charges of coup d'etat. The Department of Justice recommended filing of informations. The AFP Chief of Staff ordered the arrest and detention of the involved soldiers and directed a separate AFP investigation. Informations for coup d'etat were filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City. Procedural History: The RTC directed the DOJ to conduct a reinvestigation. The AFP Chief of Staff created a Pre-Trial Investigation Panel to determine the propriety of filing charges for violations of the Articles of War. Petitioners, among other accused, filed an Omnibus Motion with the RTC praying it assume jurisdiction over all charges filed with the military tribunal, invoking Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7055. Petitioners also moved for the suspension of military proceedings. The Pre-Trial Investigation Panel recommended charges for violations of Articles 63, 64, 67, 96, and 97 of the Articles of War. The DOJ, after reinvestigation, found probable cause against 31 accused, including petitioners, and filed an Amended Information for coup d'etat. The RTC admitted the Amended Information and dropped the charge of coup d'etat against 290 accused. The Pre-Trial Investigation Panel recommended, following the "doctrine of absorption," that those charged with coup d'etat before the RTC should not be charged before the military tribunal for violations of the Articles of War. However, the RTC issued an Order declaring that "all charges before the court martial against the accused…are hereby declared not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup d’etat," and proceeded to hear bail applications. Subsequently, the AFP Judge Advocate General recommended that 29 officers, including petitioners, be prosecuted before a general court martial for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War. This recommendation was approved, and petitioners were directed to submit their answer. Instead, they filed the instant Petition for Prohibition. The Petition: Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to prevent respondents from charging them with violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War before a court martial, arguing that the RTC had already determined the offense to be not service-connected and absorbed in the crime of coup d'etat. In a Supplemental Petition, they raised the issue of prescription of the offense charged before the General Court Martial.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in declaring that charges before the court martial were not service-connected and absorbed in the crime of coup d'etat. Whether the offense of violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War is a service-connected offense triable by court martial under R.A. No. 7055. Whether the offense charged before the General Court Martial has prescribed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The RTC gravely abused its discretion in declaring that charges before the court martial were not service-connected and absorbed in the crime of coup d'etat. The offense of violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War is a service-connected offense exclusively triable by court martial under R.A. No. 7055. The issue of prescription cannot be entertained as it involves questions of fact not within the Supreme Court's power of review in a petition for prohibition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the RTC's declaration of non-service-connection and absorption: The Court held that the RTC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring that charges before the court martial were not service-connected and were absorbed in the crime of coup d'etat. Such a declaration effectively amended the law, which vests jurisdiction over service-connected offenses in the court martial. The RTC cannot take away jurisdiction that the law has conferred. The Court reiterated the ruling in Navales v. Abaya, stating that the RTC's sweeping declaration was made without or in excess of jurisdiction and is therefore a nullity. The doctrine of absorption of crimes, peculiar to criminal law and applicable to crimes punished by the same statute, is not applicable here where different statutes are involved and where R.A. No. 7055 explicitly deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over service-connected offenses. On the service-connected nature of Article 96: The Court affirmed that Article 96 of the Articles of War (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman) is a service-connected offense as expressly provided in Section 1, second paragraph, of R.A. No. No. 7055. The charge against petitioners involved the alleged violation of their oath as officers to defend the Constitution and duly-constituted authorities, causing dishonor and disrespect to the military profession, thus bearing on their professional conduct. Furthermore, the penalty prescribed for Article 96, dismissal from the service, is purely disciplinary and imposable only by a military court, underscoring its service-connected nature. Military law is sui generis, established to maintain discipline and efficiency within the armed forces, which necessitates a separate disciplinary system for military personnel. There was no ratio provided regarding the prescription of the offense charged before the General Court Martial.
Main Doctrine
Offenses defined under Articles 54 to 70, 72 to 92, and 95 to 97 of the Articles of War are considered service-connected and are exclusively triable by court-martial, irrespective of whether they are also penalized under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws. A civil court's declaration that such an offense is absorbed in a crime cognizable by civil courts constitutes grave abuse of discretion.