Case Digest (G.R. No. 162318)
Facts:
1Lt. Julius R. Navales, et al. v. Gen. Narciso Abaya, et al., G.R. No. 162318; In the Matter of the Petition for the Habeas Corpus of Roberto Rafael (Roel) Pulido v. Gen. Narciso Abaya, et al., G.R. No. 162341, October 25, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are a group of junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (collectively, 1Lt. Navales, et al. and Capt. Reaso, et al. as the different petitioner groups), while respondents are Gen. Narciso Abaya, Chief of Staff of the AFP, and Brig. Gen. Mariano M. Sarmiento, Jr., Judge Advocate General, and others acting under their authority. In G.R. No. 162318 seven detained junior officers sought a writ of prohibition under Rule 65 to enjoin the General Court‑Martial from trying them; in G.R. No. 162341 Roberto Rafael (Roel) Pulido filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking the release of several detained junior officers and enlisted men.
The underlying events began with the July 27, 2003 Oakwood takeover: over 300 junior officers and enlisted personnel occupied the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati, posted snipers, and publicly aired grievances against the Arroyo administration. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an Information dated August 1, 2003 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati (Criminal Case No. 03‑2784) charging 321 soldiers with coup d'etat (Article 134‑A, RPC). While an Omnibus Motion was filed by 243 accused on September 12, 2003 asking, inter alia, that the RTC assume jurisdiction over military charges pursuant to Republic Act No. 7055, the DOJ on October 20, 2003 found probable cause only as to 31 accused and recommended dismissal of charges against the other 290.
On November 14, 2003, RTC Branch 61 (Judge Barza) admitted an Amended Information charging only 31 persons and dismissed the case as to the remaining 290 (which included many of the petitioners here). A commitment order dated August 2, 2003 issued by Gen. Abaya pursuant to Article 70, Articles of War, placed custody of the detained soldiers with their respective commanders. Meanwhile the military (General Court‑Martial) filed separate charges under the Articles of War (AW 63, 64, 67, 96, 97, etc.) against those who had been dropped from the civilian Amended Information.
Criminal Case No. 03‑2784 was consolidated with another RTC case and, on February 11, 2004, RTC Branch 148 issued an Order declaring the earlier Omnibus Motion moot and academic but then added a sweeping pronouncement that “all charges before the court‑martial … as well as those former accused … are hereby declared not service‑connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance to the alleged crime of coup d'etat.” The General Court‑Martial set arraignment/trial for the military charges for March 16, 2004.
Petitioners filed the present Rule 65 prohibition (G.R. No. 162318) and habeas corpus (G.R. No. 162341) petitions in the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin the military trials and to secure release of the detained soldiers. This Court, in a March 16, 2004 Resolution, directed the parties to maintain the status quo while the petitions were pending. Respondents argued the RTC Branch 148 declaration was null and void because the movants were no longer parties (their coup d'etat charges had been dismissed by Branch 61), that the Branch 148 ruling was inconsistent and issued without due process, and that many of the military charges are expressly “service‑connected” under R.A. No. 7055, Sec. 1; respondents also poi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners entitled to the writs of prohibition and habeas corpus to prevent the General Court‑Martial from proceeding and to secure their rel...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)