Case Digest (G.R. No. 171855) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In FE V. RAPSING, TITA C. VILLANUEVA AND ANNIE F. APAREJADO, REPRESENTED BY EDGAR APAREJADO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE MAXIMINO R. ABLES, OF RTC-BRANCH 47, MASBATE CITY; SSGT. EDISON RURAL, CAA JOSE MATU, CAA MORIE FLORES, CAA GUILLIEN TOPAS, CAA DANDY FLORES, CAA LEONARDO CALIMUTAN AND CAA RENE ROM, RESPONDENTS (G.R. No. 171855, October 15, 2012), petitioners are the widows of Teogenes Rapsing, Teofilo Villanueva and Edwin Aparejado, allegedly summarily executed on May 3, 2004 in Sitio Gaway-gaway, Barangay Lagta, Baleno, Masbate. Respondents, members of the Alpha Company, 22nd Infantry Battalion, 9th Division, Philippine Army, claimed they engaged in a legitimate military operation against armed NPA partisans, resulting in an intense firefight and the deaths of seven individuals, including petitioners’ husbands. The National Bureau of Investigation recommended multiple murder charges after witnesses stated the victims were unarmed civilians. On February 15, 2005, the Masbate Case Digest (G.R. No. 171855) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Antecedents
- Petitioners (Fe Rapsing, Tita C. Villanueva, Annie F. Aparejado, represented by Edgar Aparejado) are the widows of Teogenes Rapsing, Teofilo Villanueva, and Edwin Aparejado, allegedly killed in Masbate.
- Respondents (SSgt. Edison Rural, CAAs Jose Matu, Morie Flores, Guillien Topas, Dandy Flores, Leonardo Calimutan, Rene Rom) are Philippine Army personnel of Alpha Company, 22nd Infantry Battalion, 9th Division, Cabangcalan Detachment, Aroroy, Masbate City.
- Incident and Procedural History
- May 3, 2004: Respondents, acting on tip of NPA presence in Sitio Gaway-gaway, Barangay Lagta, Baleno, Masbate, coordinated with PNP and engaged alleged armed elements. The Army reported a legitimate encounter with armed NPA partisans; petitioners alleged a cold-blooded massacre of unarmed civilians.
- Investigation and Charges
- NBI investigation: Witnesses claimed summary execution; recommended preliminary investigation for multiple murder.
- February 9, 2005: Provincial Prosecutor’s Resolution finding probable cause; February 15, 2005: Information for multiple murder filed under Article 248, RPC, against respondents.
- July 28, 2005: RTC Branch 47 issued arrest warrants; Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAGO), AFP filed Omnibus Motion (July 20, 2005) to transfer the case to military courts.
- RTC initially denied motion for lack of arrest; on December 6, 2005 granted motion, turned over records to 9th Infantry Division; January 11, 2006 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- October 15, 2012: Petitioners filed Rule 65 certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court to set aside the RTC orders.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Question
- Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in transferring the multiple murder case against AFP personnel to the military tribunal despite a civil court’s exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over RPC crimes under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
- Whether, under Republic Act No. 7055, the offense charged (multiple murder) is a “service-connected” crime within Articles 54–70, 72–92, 95–97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, thus falling under court-martial jurisdiction.
- Mode of Review
- Whether the RTC’s transfer orders are appealable or subject to certiorari, given that no trial on the merits had commenced.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)