G.R. No. 162318 - Navales vs. Abaya

Case Summary (G.R. No. 162318)

Factual Background

On July 27, 2003, over three hundred junior officers and enlisted personnel entered and occupied the Oakwood Premier Apartments at Ayala Center, Makati City. They disarmed security guards, planted explosives and posted snipers and, through public broadcasts, announced grievances against the Arroyo administration and the AFP leadership. The occupation ceased after negotiations and an agreement; the soldiers returned to barracks later that night. The narrative of events draws largely from the Fact-Finding Commission report dated October 15, 2003.

Filing of Charges Before Civil and Military Forums

The Department of Justice filed an Information on August 1, 2003 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City charging 321 soldiers with coup d’etat under Article 134-A. Subsequently, the Amended Information of October 30, 2003 charged only 31 accused; the RTC, Branch 61, admitted this Amended Information by Order dated November 14, 2003 and dismissed the case as to the remaining 290. Separately, many junior officers and enlisted men, including the petitioners here, were charged before the General Court-Martial with violations of the Articles of War such as Art. 63, 64, 67, 96 and 97.

RTC Proceedings and the Omnibus Motion

On September 12, 2003, two hundred forty-three of the original accused filed an Omnibus Motion in RTC Branch 61 seeking, among other reliefs, that the RTC assume jurisdiction over charges pending before military tribunals in accordance with Republic Act No. 7055, and that the prosecution be ordered to present evidence of probable cause. After the Amended Information was admitted and other procedural developments, Criminal Case No. 03-2784 was consolidated and later considered by RTC Branch 148, which issued an Order dated February 11, 2004 declaring the Omnibus Motion moot and academic and further stating that charges before the court-martial were not service-connected but absorbed by coup d’etat.

Petitions Filed with the Supreme Court

Petitioners in G.R. No. 162318 sought a writ of prohibition under Rule 65 to enjoin the General Court-Martial from proceeding against them. In G.R. No. 162341, counsel Roberto Rafael Pulido filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking the release of detained junior officers and enlisted men allegedly held unlawfully pursuant to the Commitment Order of August 2, 2003. The Supreme Court imposed a status quo in a March 16, 2004 resolution and later considered the petitions on their merits.

Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioners argued that under Republic Act No. 7055 the RTC had already determined that the offenses were not service-connected and were properly within the jurisdiction of the civilian courts; hence the General Court-Martial lacked jurisdiction to try them. They further contended that the DOJ had dismissed the coup d’etat charges for insufficiency of evidence and that continued detention under the Commitment Order of August 2, 2003 lacked authority.

Respondents' Contentions

The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, urged dismissal. They maintained that RTC Branch 148’s February 11, 2004 Order was null and void insofar as it declared offenses non-service-connected because when Branch 148 resolved the Omnibus Motion the petitioners had already been dismissed from the civilian prosecution and thus lacked standing to move the court. The respondents asserted denial of due process in the issuance of the February 11 Order and pointed out its internal inconsistency in deeming the Omnibus Motion moot yet pronouncing that the military charges were absorbed by coup d’etat. They further relied on Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7055 to contend that the military courts retained jurisdiction over the Articles of War offenses charged against the petitioners.

Legal Issue Presented

The sole issue framed by the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the writs of prohibition and habeas corpus based on the contention that the General Court-Martial lacked jurisdiction because the RTC had declared the offenses non-service-connected and because coup d’etat charges before the RTC had been dismissed.

The Court's Holdings

The Court denied relief and dismissed both the petition for prohibition (G.R. No. 162318) and the petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. 162341). The Court held that the sweeping declaration in RTC Branch 148’s February 11, 2004 Order that all charges before the court-martial were not service-connected but absorbed by coup d’etat could not be given effect insofar as it purported to govern petitioners who had been dismissed from the civilian case by the RTC Branch 61 Order of November 14, 2003.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained that jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be conferred, divested or altered by parties’ agreement or by judicial acquiescence. It noted that Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7055 expressly limits service-connected offenses to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408. The Court emphasized that violations of Articles 63, 64, 67, 96 and 97 fall within the enumerated service-connected offenses and therefore are within the jurisdiction of military courts. The Court found that Branch 148 acted without or in excess of jurisdiction

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 162318)

Parties and Procedural Posture

1Lt. Navales, et al. filed a Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 in G.R. No. 162318 to enjoin the General Court-Martial from trying them for alleged violations of the Articles of War.
Capt. Reaso, et al. filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus in G.R. No. 162341 seeking release from detention pursuant to the Commitment Order dated August 2, 2003.
Gen. Narciso Abaya acted as respondent in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and issued the Commitment Order under Article 70 of the Articles of War.
Brig. Gen. Mariano M. Sarmiento, Jr. was named as respondent in his capacity as Judge Advocate General and officer in command of the Judge Advocate General Office.
The petitions principally challenged the jurisdiction of the General Court-Martial and the legality of continued detention in light of prior rulings by the Regional Trial Court.

Key Factual Allegations

More than three hundred junior officers and enlisted men entered and occupied the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City on July 27, 2003, disarmed security guards, planted explosives, and posted snipers on the roof.
The occupying soldiers were predominantly from the Philippine Army’s Scout Rangers and the Philippine Navy’s Special Warfare Group and were led by a group later identified as the Magdalo group.
The soldiers publicly announced grievances against the administration by way of national television and demanded resignations of civilian and military officials.
Negotiations between the soldiers and the Government produced an agreement on the evening of July 27, 2003, and the soldiers returned to barracks the same night.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 7055 provides that members of the Armed Forces who commit offenses shall be tried by the proper civil court except when the offense is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial.
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7055 defines service-connected offenses as those limited to Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War).
Article 134-A (coup detat) of the Revised Penal Code sets forth the crime with which many participants were initially charged in civilian court.
Article 70 of the Articles of War authorizes confinement or arrest of persons subject to military law and served as the basis for the Commitment Order issued by Gen. Abaya.

Procedural History

The Department of Justice filed an Information dated August 1, 2003 in the RTC of Makati City charging 321 soldiers with Article 134-A (coup detat) and the case was docketed as People v. Milo Maestrecampo, et al.
On September 12, 2003, two hundred forty-three accused filed an Omnibus Motion asking the RTC to assume jurisdiction over military charges under R.A. 7055 and to require the prosecution to establish probable cause.
The DOJ issued a Resolution dated October 20, 2003 finding probable cause only against thirty-one accused and dismissing charges against the remainder.
The RTC, Branch 61, admitted an Amended Information on November 14, 2003 charging only thirty-one accused and dismissed the case as to the other two hundred ninety.
The dismissed accused, including 1Lt. Navales, et al. and Capt. Reaso, et al., were subsequently charged before the General Court-Martial with violations of the Articles of War including Articles 63, 64, 67, 96, and 97.
On February 11, 2004, RTC Branch 148 issued an order declaring the Omnibus Motion moot and academic and further declared, in its dispositive clause, that charges before the court-martial were not service-connected but absorbed by coup detat.
The petitioners sought relief from this Court and secured a status quo order on March 16, 2004.

Petitioners’ Contentions

The petitioners contended that Republic Act No. 7055 and the RTC’s findings precluded military jurisdiction because the RTC had already determined that the offenses were not service-related.
The petitioners asserted that the d