Gonzales v Abaya

GR No 164007; Aug 10, 2006

FACTS: on July 27, 2003, more than 300 heavily armed junior officers and enlisted men of the
AFP entered Oakwood, Ayala Ave. They disarmed the security guards and planted explosives
around the building. Led by Navy Lt Trillanes IV, the troops sported red armbands emblazoned
with the emblem of the Magdalo faction of the Katipunan. Through broadcast media, the troops
announced their grievances against the Arroyo Administration such as the graft and corruption in
the military, the illegal sale of arms to the enemies of the state and the bombings in Davao City.
They declared their withdrawal of support from their Commander-in-Chief and demanded that
she resign as President as well as the resignation of her cabinet members and the top brass of the
AFP and PNP. About noontime of the same day, President Arroyo issued Proclamation 427
declaring a state of rebellion followed by GO 4 directing the AFP and PNP to take all necessary
measures to suppress the rebellion then taking place in Makati City. Shortly thereafter, a total of
321 soldiers, including petitioners herein, surrendered to the authorities. On Aug 2, pursuant to
Art 70 of the Articles of War, respondent Gen Narciso Abaya ordered the arrest and detention of
the soldiers involved in the incident and directed the AFP to conduct its own separate
investigation. Petitioners herein was charged with coup d’etat in the RTC of Makati. On Oct 29,
2003, the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel submitted its Initial Report to the AFP Chief of Staff
recommending that the military personnel involved be charged before a general court martial
with violations of Arts 63, 64, 67, 96, and 97 of the Articles of War. On Feb 11, 2004, the RTC
held that the charges were not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the
alleged crime of coup d’etat. In the meantime, 29 of the officers, including the petitioners, were
prosecuted before a general court martial for violation of Art 96 of the Articles of War.

ISSUE: Should petitioners be prosecuted in civil court for their crimes? Should the court martial
be prohibited from charging petitioners for violation of Art 96 of the Articles of War
(unbecoming a gentleman)?

RULING: Yes. Section 1 of RA 7055 is clear and unambiguous. First, it lays down the general
rule that members of the AFP and other persons subject to military law, including members of
the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under
the RPC, other special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court.
Next, it provides the exception where the civil court has determined the offense to be service-
connected. Lastly, the law states an exception to the exception where the President directs before
arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil court.

No. It was held that the offense for violation of Art 96 is service-connected. This is expressly
provided in Sec 1 of RA 7055. It bears stressing that the charge against the petitioners concerns
the alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend the Constitution and the duly-
constituted authorities. Such violation allegedly caused dishonor and disrespect to the military
profession. Equally indicative of the “service-connected” nature of the offense is the penalty
prescribed for the same – dismissal from the service – imposable only by the military court. Such
penalty is purely disciplinary in character, evidently intended to cleanse the military profession
of misfits and to preserve the stringent standard of military discipline. The RTC, in making such
declaration, practically amended the law which expressly vests in the court martial their
jurisdiction which constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and is, therefore, void.