Case Digest (G.R. No. 92606)
Facts:
Major Zosimo R. Magno and Captain Rosario J. Tamayo v. General Renato De Villa, et al., G.R. No. 92606, July 26, 1991, Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: Major Zosimo R. Magno (Philippine Constabulary) and Captain Rosario J. Tamayo (Philippine Army). They were among several officers for whom Lt. Col. Rodolfo G. Munar of the Judge Advocate General’s Office found probable cause in a Memorandum dated 28 March 1989, resulting in a formal Charge Sheet that referred the case to General Court Martial No. 6 (GCM 6).The Charge Sheet, prepared pursuant to the Manual for Courts‑Martial, charged petitioners (with co‑accused Captain Antonio Gelvero and others) with violations of Articles of War Nos. 94, 95 and 96 and with malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, specifying acts of embezzlement, misappropriation and issuance of unauthorized checks. During the pre‑trial petitioners filed counter‑affidavits denying the charges and objecting that the Charge Sheet was multiplicitous or a "shotgun" pleading that deprived them of being informed with particularity.
When GCM 6 convened for arraignment on 1 March 1990 petitioners, through civilian counsel, moved that the Charge Sheet be quashed because it charged more than one offense and thus violated their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Counsel then sought a bill of particulars rather than pressing a quashal. Petitioners declined to enter a plea at arraignment and the Law Member directed that a plea of not guilty be entered for them. GCM 6 denied the motion to quash and proceeded with the arraignment and trial preparations.
On 30 March 1990 petitioners filed a petition in this Court seeking relief by certiorari/prohibition (Rule 65), raising multiple issues but focusing on the contention that the Charge Sheet unlawfully charged multiple offenses in violation of what they invoked as Rule 110, Sec. 13 (duplicity), Article III, Sec. 14 of the 1987 Constitution, and Section 27 of the Manual for Courts‑Martial. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment arguing that GCM 6 had not committed any jurisdictional error and that military justice is governed by the Articles of War and the Manual (Executive Order No. 178). After procedural resolution...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did General Court Martial No. 6 commit a jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the Charge Sheet and in directing that a plea of not guilty be entered for petitioners who refused to plead?
- Does the Charge Sheet unlawfully charge more than one offense (duplicity/multiplicity) in violation of Rule 110, Sec. 13 and Article III, Sec. 14 of the 1987 Constitution, warranting dismissal or quashal?
- Are the Rules of Court applicable to courts‑martial, or do the procedures prescribed in the Manual for Courts‑Martial (Executive Order No...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)