Navales v. Abaya, G.R. Nos. 162318 & 162341, October 25, 2004

Ponente: CALLEJO, SR., J.

Petition for Habeas Corpus and Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65

Facts: 

Petitioners:  1st Lt. Navales, et al. and Capt. Reaso, et al

Respondents in the two petitions: General Narciso Abaya who, as Chief of Staff of the AFP, exercises command and control over all the members and agencies of the AFP, and Brigadier General Mariano Sarmiento, Jr., the Judge Advocate General of the AFP and officer in command of the Judge Advocate General Office (JAGO), the agency of the AFP tasked to conduct the court-martial proceedings.

Background: At past 1:00 a.m. of July 27, 2003, more than 300 junior officers and enlisted men took over the  Oakwood Premier Apartments. The group was led by Navy LtSG. Antonio Trillanes IV, Army Capt. Gerardo Gambala, Army Capt. Milo Maestrecampo, Navy LtSG. James Layug, and Marine Capt. Gary Alejano.

They aired their grievances against the administration of PGMA and the graft and corruption in the military, They declared their withdrawal of support from the chain of command and demanded the resignation of key civilian and military leaders.

Series of negotiations ensued between the soldiers and the Government. An agreement was forged at 9:30 p.m. Shortly thereafter, PGMA announced that the occupation of Oakwood was over.

Case filed:

Information was filed with the RTC Makati charging 321 soldiers with the crime of coup detat, the case was raffled to RTC Branch 61.

Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion with RTC 61 praying that the court assume jurisdiction over all the charges filed before the military tribunal in accordance w/ RA 7055.

While the said motion was pending resolution, the DOJ issued a Resolution finding probable cause for coup detat against only 31 of the original 321 accused. Consequently, an Amended Information was admitted by the RTC 61 charging only 31 soldiers.  This case was eventually consolidated with another case pending before the RTC Branch 148.

Case against the other 290 accused, including those who are subject of the petition for habeas corpus, was dismissed. However, 1Lt. Navales, et al. and Capt. Reaso, et al. were charged before the General Court-Martial with violations of the Articles of War (AW).

Meanwhile, RTC 148 acting on the Omnibus Motion issued an Order declaring that:

(1)   in view of the Order of RTC 61 the petition was considered already MOOT AND ACADEMIC (bec. the accused who filed the same were no longer being charged with coup detat under the Amended Information)

(2)  all charges before the court-martial against the accused (the 31) as well as those former accused are hereby declared not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance to the alleged crime of coup detat

Two petitions were then filed before the SC both assailing the jurisdiction of the General Court-Martial to conduct the court-martial proceedings.

One, a Petition for Habeas Corpus seeking the release of the junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP; the other,  a Petition for Prohibition seeking to enjoin the General Court-Martial from proceeding with the trial of the petitioners and their co-accused for alleged violations of the Articles of War.

--------------------------------------------------

Petitioners' Arguments:

I. Under Republic Act No. 7055, the Respondents and the general court-martial are without any jurisdiction to further conduct proceedings against the petitioners and their colleagues because the Regional Trial Court has already determined that the offenses are not service-related and are properly within the jurisdiction of the civilian courts

II. The Respondents have no authority to further detain the junior officers and enlisted men as the charges for coup'detat before the regional trial court have been dismissed for lack of evidence upon motion of the department of justice

--------------------------------------------------

Respondents' Arguments:

(1) RTC 148 Order (2)  is null and void.

•    At the time the said motion was resolved, petitioners 1Lt. Navales, et al. and Capt. Reaso, et al. (as movants therein) were no longer parties in the case as the charge against them was already dismissed by the RTC 61.

•   The charges against 1Lt. Navales, et al. and Capt. Reaso, et al. filed with the General Court-Martial, i.e., violations of the Articles of War 63, 64, 67, 96 and 97, are, in fact, among those declared to be service-connected under the second paragraph of  Sec 1 of RA7055. This means that the civil court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the said offenses, the same being properly cognizable by the General Court-Martial. Thus, the RTC 148 acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when it declared in its Order that the charges against those accused before the General Court-Martial were not service-connected, but absorbed and in furtherance of the crime of coup detat.

(2) They were denied of due process as they were not given an opportunity to oppose or comment on the Omnibus Motion

--------------------------------------------------

Issue: WON the petitioners are entitled to the writs of prohibition and habeas corpus.

Held: With regard to the writ of prohibition, no, as the General Court Martial has jurisdiction over charges filed against the petitioners.

With regard to the writ of habeas corpus, also no, as they are already charged before the General Court-martial and under detention purusant to the Commitment Order issued by the Chief of Staff of the AFP purusant to the Articles of War.

RTC 148 Order (2) is null. It is a superfluity and cannot be given effect. Why? Because

RTC 148 acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it declared that “all charges before the court-martial against *** those former accused are *** not service-connected but rather absorbed and in furtherance to the alleged crime of coup detat”.

•  RTC 148 already declared that the Omnibus Motion had already been rendered moot and academic with respect to 1Lt. Navales, et al. and Capt. Reaso, et al. by reason of the dismissal of the charge of coup detat against them. If this is the case, then the charges against them (which again are already been dismissed) cannot be ruled as not service-connected. 

•    Such declaration was made in violation of Sec 1, RA No. 7055.

There was no factual and legal basis for the RTC 148  to rule that violations of  Articles 63 (Disrespect Toward the President etc.), 64 (Disrespect Toward Superior Officer), 67 (Mutiny or Sedition), 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and 97 (General Article) of the Articles of War were committed in furtherance of coup detat and, as such, absorbed by the latter crime.  Hence by still making such declaration, RTC 148 unlawfully divested the General Court-Martial of its jurisdiction over those said crimes, which under Par2  Sec 1 of RA No. 7055 are considered service-connected crimes.

Note: Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 7055 provides:

Section 1. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinances, regardless of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.

As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended.

DECISION: The two petitions are DISMISSED.

An audio version of this digest is available at YouTube. Click this link to listen.