Gonzales v. Abaya, G.R. No.

164007, 10 August 2006

Oakwood mutiny. More than 300 heavily armed junior officers and enlisted men of the AFP,
entered the premises of the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments and planted explosive devices
around the building.

The troops then, by broadcasting through the media, announced their grievances in the present
administration and demand PGMA to resign. In order to avoid a bloody confrontation, the
government sent negotiators to talk to the soldiers. In turn, a total of 321 soldiers, including
petitioners, surrendered. The NBI and the Chief state Prosecutor of the DOJ recommended that
the military personnel involved be charged with the crime of coup d’etat defined and penalized
under Article 134-A.

Coup d' etat presupposes a swift attack. Antonio Trillanes et al. attacked the Oakwood Hotel in
Makati.

Offenses committed by military personnel are triable under civil courts if it involves violation of
civil laws (like the RPC). Now, however, before arraignment, if the civil court determines that the
offense is service-connected, then the trial court can refer it to a Court Martial.

GENERAL RULE: Members of the AFP and other persons subject to military law who commit
crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code (like coup d’etat), other special penal
laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the proper civil court.

EXCEPTION: Where the civil court, before arraignment, has determined the offense to be service-
connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried by a court martial.

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: Where the President of the Philippines, in the interest of justice,
directs before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil court.
Why? Because the President is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the
Philippines.

SC held that the crime committed is service-connected and military courts have jurisdiction.

Moreover, the doctrine of ‘absorption of crimes’ is peculiar to criminal law and generally applies
to crimes punished by the same statute, unlike here where different statutes are involved in the
committed crimes (coup d’état and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman). Secondly,
the doctrine applies only if the trial court has jurisdiction over both offences. Here, Section 1 of
R.A. 7055 deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over service-connected offenses, including Article 96
of the Articles of War (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman). Thus, the doctrine of
absorption of crimes is not applicable to this case.