Title
Gonzales vs. Abaya
Case
G.R. No. 164007
Decision Date
Aug 10, 2006
Military officers seized Oakwood, charged with coup d’état and conduct unbecoming; Supreme Court upheld court-martial jurisdiction for service-connected offenses under R.A. No. 7055.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188839)

Facts

  • July 27, 2003: ~300 armed junior officers/men occupied Oakwood Premier Apartments, Makati, under the “Magdalo” banner, aired corruption charges, demanded resignations, and threatened rebellion.
  • July 27 noon: President Arroyo declared a state of rebellion (Proclamation 427) and ordered suppression; troops surrendered the same day after negotiations.
  • 321 soldiers, including petitioners, returned to barracks; NBI and DOJ investigated, recommending coup d’état charges under Art. 134-A, RPC.

Civil Proceedings (Coup d’État)

  • Jul. 31, 2003: DOJ filed Information for coup d’état (Criminal Case No. 03-2784, RTC Makati).
  • Aug. 13, 2003: RTC directed reinvestigation of coup d’état charges.
  • Nov. 11, 2003: DOJ reinvestigation found probable cause only against 31 officers; Amended Information filed.
  • Nov. 14, 2003: RTC admitted Amended Information; dismissed coup d’état charges against remaining 290 soldiers.

Military Proceedings (Articles of War)

  • Aug. 2, 2003: AFP Chief of Staff ordered arrest/detention and separate military investigation under Commonwealth Act 408 (Articles of War).
  • Aug. 13, 2003: Letter Order 625 created Pre-Trial Panel to assess charges for violations of Arts. 63 (disrespect), 64 (disobedience), 67 (mutiny), 96 (conduct unbecoming), 97 (general article).
  • Oct. 29 & Dec. 12, 2003: Panel’s Initial and Final Reports recommended court-martial; Final Report invoked “absorption” doctrine to exclude charges against those already facing coup d’état.
  • Jun. 17, 2004: AFP reignited charges against 29 officers (including petitioners) solely for violation of Art. 96.

Petition for Prohibition

  • Petitioners moved for a writ of prohibition to bar court-martial on Art. 96, relying on the RTC’s Feb. 11, 2004 Order declaring all court-martial offenses “not service-connected” and absorbed into coup d’état.
  • Solicitor General countered that RA 7055 vests jurisdiction in courts-martial over “service-connected” offenses (Arts. 54–70, 72–92, 95–97, Articles of War), including Art. 96.

Issue

Are petitioners entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing their prosecution by general court-martial for Art. 96 conduct unbecoming an officer, given concurrent civilian proceedings and the RTC’s determination of non-service-connection?

Applicable Law

  • Constitution (1987), Art. II, Sec. 3: civilian supremacy over the military.
  • Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War), as amended: defines military offenses (including Art. 96).
  • Republic Act No. 7055: generally assigns to civil courts jurisdiction over crimes under the RPC and special laws, except “service-connected” offenses limited to Arts. 54–70, 72–92, 95–97 of Commonwealth Act 408.
  • Rule 65, Rules of Civil Procedure: writ of prohibition to restrain usurpation or excess of jurisdiction.

Holding

The petition is DISMISSED. Respondents validly convened a general court-martial and may prosecute petitioners for violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War.

Rationale

  1. Service-Connection under RA 7055

    • Section 1: “service-connected crimes or offenses” are expressly limited to Arts. 54–70, 72–92, 95–97. Art. 96 falls within this enumeration.
    • As such, court-martial jurisdiction over Art. 96 is constitutionally and statutorily preserved despite concurrent civil proceedings.

  2. RTC Order Exceeds Jurisdiction

    • The RTC’s Feb. 11 2004 Order declaring Art. 96 “not service-connected” violated RA 7055 by effectively amending the law; only the Constitution or legislature may do so.

  3. Nature of M

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms