Title
Navales vs. Abaya
Case
G.R. No. 162318
Decision Date
Oct 25, 2004
In 2003, 300 AFP soldiers seized Oakwood Apartments, protesting corruption. Charged with coup d'état and military offenses, Supreme Court upheld General Court-Martial jurisdiction, dismissing petitions for prohibition and habeas corpus.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 180665)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural Posture
    • Two consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court:
      • G.R. No. 162318 – Petition for prohibition by seven junior officers and enlisted men (1Lt. Navales, et al.).
      • G.R. No. 162341 – Petition for habeas corpus by their co-accused (Capt. Reaso, et al.).
    • Respondents are General Narciso Abaya (AFP Chief of Staff), Brig. Gen. Mariano Sarmiento, Jr. (Judge Advocate General), and other AFP officers.
  • The Oakwood Incident (July 27, 2003)
    • Around 300 junior officers and enlisted personnel of the AFP took over Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati, citing grievances against graft, corruption, and alleged mismanagement in the military.
    • They broadcast demands for the resignation of civilian and military officials, prompting a state of rebellion declaration by President Arroyo and subsequent negotiations.
  • Parallel Charging Schemes
    • Civil‐court route: Department of Justice filed an Information for coup d’état (Art. 134-A, RPC) against 321 soldiers before the RTC of Makati.
1) An Omnibus Motion by 243 accused sought to transfer all cases to military courts under RA 7055. 2) DOJ later pared down the Information to 31 accused; charges against the other 290 (including the petitioners) were dismissed for lack of evidence.
  • Military‐court route: The 290 dropped from the coup d’état charge were instead charged before the General Court-Martial with violations of Articles of War (AW 63, 64, 67, 96, 97).
  • The petitioners’ motions in the RTC (Branch 148) to deem all offenses “not service-connected” and thus within civilian jurisdiction were granted by an Order (February 11, 2004) declaring all charges absorbed by the coup-d’état, later attacked as beyond that court’s power.

Issues:

  • Whether the RTC (Branch 148) acted within jurisdiction in declaring AMW offenses “not service-connected” and subsumed them by coup d’état.
  • Whether the General Court-Martial retains jurisdiction to try the petitioners for specified Articles of War offenses under Republic Act No. 7055.
  • Whether the petitioners’ continued detention pursuant to the Commitment Order (Art. 70, AW) and the scheduled court-martial proceedings violate their rights, thus entitling them to habeas corpus or prohibition.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.