G.R. No. 164007 - Gonzales vs. Abaya

On July 26–27, 2003, intelligence reports prompted President Arroyo to order the AFP and PNP to track down junior officers and enlisted men who had abandoned assignments to destabilize the government.
Around 1:00 a.m. on July 27, more than 300 armed soldiers (mainly from Scout Rangers and the Navy’s Special Warfare Group), led by Lt. (SG) Antonio Trillanes IV and wearing red “Magdalo” armbands, stormed the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati, disarmed guards, planted explosives, and, via broadcast, denounced graft, corruption, and bombings, withdrew support from the President, and demanded her resignation.

By noon of July 27, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 declaring a state of rebellion and General Order No. 4 to suppress it. She set a 5:00 p.m. deadline for surrender.
To avert bloodshed, negotiators persuaded the soldiers to lay down arms; by afternoon 321 personnel (including petitioners) returned to barracks and surrendered.

The NBI recommended coup d’état charges under RPC Art. 134-A. On July 31, the DOJ filed an Information with RTC Makati (Crim. Case No. 03-2784); the AFP Chief of Staff ordered a separate military investigation under Art. 70, Articles of War.
A Pre-Trial Investigation Panel recommended charges under Arts. 63, 64, 67, 96, 97 of the Articles of War against 321 soldiers; 243 petitioners moved the RTC (Branch 148) to assume jurisdiction under R.A. 7055.
On November 11, 2003, DOJ’s reinvestigation found probable cause against only 31 soldiers; RTC admitted an Amended Information, dropped coup charges vs. 290 accused, and on Feb. 11, 2004, declared all Art. 63, 64, 67, 96, 97 charges “not service-connected but absorbed” in coup d’état.
In June 2004, the AFP Judge Advocate General approved recommending 29 officers (including petitioners) be tried for Art. 96 only. Petitioners filed a Petition for Prohibition on jurisdiction, arguing Art. 96 was absorbed.
Petitioners later filed a Supplemental Petition claiming the Art. 96 charge prescribed under Art. 38, but respondents insist all were duly arraigned before the court-martial.

Does the court-martial have jurisdiction to try petitioners for violation of Art. 96 of the Articles of War, given R.A. 7055 and the RTC’s Feb. 11, 2004 Order declaring those charges non-service-connected?
Has the Art. 96 charge prescribed under Art. 38 of the Articles of War?