Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
v.
Abaya
(2004)
|
G.R.
No.
162318
|
Oct
25,
2004
|
Ponente:
Callejo
J.
Nature
of
the
Case:
Petition
for
Certiorari
and
Prohibition
under
Rule
65
Petitioners:
1Lt.
Navales,
et
al.
Respondents:
General Narciso Abaya,
General Mariano Sarmiento, Jr.,
SUMMARY:
The
Court
rules
on
the
constitutionality
of
the
appointment
of
Reynaldo
A.
Villar
as
the
Chairman
of
the
Commission
on
Audit,
based
on
the
constitutional
provision
found
in
Art.
IX(D),
Sec.
1(2).
The
Court
ruled
that
his
appointment
was
unconstitutional,
because
the
Constitution
mandates
that
any
member
of
COA
cannot
have
a
term
longer
than
an
total
of
7
years.
DOCTRINE:
Powers
and
Functions
of
the
President,
Power
of
Appointment
FACTS:
• At
past
1:00
am
July
27
2003,
elite
units
of
the
AFP,
the
Philippine
Armys
Scout
Rangers
and
the
Philippine
Navys
Special
Warfare
Group
(SWAG)
entered
Ayala
Center
and
took
over
Oakwood
Premier
Apartments
(Oakwood)
in
Makati
City.
They
disarmed
the
security
guards,
planted
explosives
around
the
building
and
in
its
vicinity.
Snipers
were
posted
at
the
Oakwood
roof
deck.
•
• The
Magdalo
group
led
the
soldiers
in
full
battle
gear.
The
leaders
were
identified
as
including
Navy
LtSG.
Antonio
Trillanes
IV,
Army
Capt.
Gerardo
Gambala,
Army
Capt.
Milo
Maestrecampo,
Navy
LtSG.
James
Layug,
and
Marine
Capt.
Gary
Alejano.
• 4:00-‐5:00
am
The
soldiers
release
a
statement
through
ABS
CBN
claiming
that
their
mutiny
and
withdrawal
of
support
from
the
chain
of
command
(the
President)
was
due
to
the
following
grievances;
o Graft
and
corruption
in
the
military,
o the
sale
of
arms
and
ammunition
to
the
enemies
of
the
State,
o Bombings
in
Davao
City
which
were
allegedly
ordered
by
Brig.
Gen.
Victor
Corpus,
Chief
of
the
ISAFP,
in
order
to
obtain
more
military
assistance
from
the
United
States
government,
o Micro-‐management
in
the
AFP
by
then
Department
of
National
Defense
(DND)
Secretary
Angelo
Reyes.
• 9:00am
President
GMA
gives
the
deadline
of
5:00
pm
for
the
soldiers
to
surrender
peacefully
but
the
deadline
is
extended
to
7:00
pm
then
later
indefinitely
• 1:00
pm
President
GMA
declares
state
of
rebellion
and
issues
an
order
to
use
reasonable
force
to
quell
the
mutiny
•
Meantime,
negotiations
between
the
soldiers
and
the
State(via
a
team
led
by
Ambassador
Roy
Cimatu)
is
ongoing.
Negotiations
are
successful
at
9:30
PM
• President
GMA
announces
the
end
of
the
mutiny
and
the
soldiers
vacate
oakwood
at
11:00
pm
• DOJ
charges
321
Oakwood
mutineers
with
violation
of
RPC
Article
134-‐A
coup
d’état
at
the
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Makati
City.
The
DOJ
later
issues
a
resolution
finding
probable
cause
for
coup
d’état
for
only
31
soldiers
and
dismisses
the
charges
against
the
290
remaining
soldiers
for
insufficiency
of
evidence
• The
accused
filed
an
Omnibus
Motion
praying
that
jurisdiction
be
assumed
by
military
tribunal
instead
of
the
RTC
and
that
the
charges
be
dismissed
if
the
prosecution
is
unable
to
establish
probable
cause
• The
RTC
accepted
the
DOJ’s
dismissal
of
charges
for
the
290
remaining
soldiers
and
set
up
arraignment
for
the
31
soldiers
with
charges
still
standing
for
the
Criminal
Case No.
03-‐2784,
entitled
People
v.
Ramon
Cardenas,
• The
petitioners
of
this
case
were
dropped
from
that
Criminal
Case
but
were
charged
before
the
military
tribunal
(the
General
Court-‐Martial)
for
violating
the
Articles
of
War
(AW),
including:
AW
67
(Mutiny),
AW
97
(Conduct
Prejudicial
to
Good
Order
and
Military
Discipline),
AW
96
(Conduct
Unbecoming
an
Officer
and
a
Gentleman),
AW
63
(Disrespect
to
the
President,
the
Secretary
of
Defense,
etc.)
and
AW
64
(Disrespect
Towards
Superior
Officer)
• On
the
other
hand
those
still
with
criminal
charges
were
not
included
in
the
charge
sheets
for
violations
of
the
Articles
of
War.
• HOWEVER,
the
RTC
issues
an
Order
stating
that
1.the
Omnibus
Motion
was
moot
and
academic,
2.
That
the
RTC
was
subsuming
the
jurisdiction
of
the
charges
the
petitioners
are
facing
in
front
of
the
military
tribunal
back
to
the
RTC,
as
the
acts
were
not
service
connected
but
under
the
alleged
crime
of
coup
d’état.
• The
Petitioners
pray
for
the
prohibition
of
the
martial
law
tribunals’
proceedings
and
habeas
corpus
for
the
detainment
of
junior
officers
and
enlisted
men,
arguing
that;
o Under
RA
7055,
the
respondents
(
General
Abaya
and
Judge
Advocate
General's
Office)
have
no
jurisdiction
to
continue
the
proceedings
against
the
petitioners
since
the
RTC’s
Order
determined
that
the
offenses
are
not
service
related
and
are
within
the
jurisdiction
the
Civillian
Courts
o The
Respondents
have
no
authority
to
detain
the
officers
and
enlisted
men
since
the
RTC
had
dismissed
the
charges
of
coup
d’état
for
the
lack
of
evidence
upon
motion
of
the
DOJ
• The
Respondents,
through
the
Solicitor
General
urges
for
the
dismissal
of
the
petitions
on
the
lack
of
merit
o The
RTC’s
Order
dated
February
11,
resolveing
the
Omnibus
Motion
and
declared
that
the
charges
for
both
the
criminally
charged
and
those
charged
in
front
of
the
military
tribunal
were
not
service-‐
connected,
is
null
and
void.
o Petitioners
have
no
personality
to
pursue
their
current
petitions
of
prohibition
and
habeas
corpus
because
they
were
no
longer
parties
in
Criminal
Case
No.
03-‐2784,
when
their
criminal
charges
were
dismissed.
They
are
not
real
parties
in
interest
at
the
time
their
Motion
was
resolved
by
the
RTC.
§ The
RTC’s
order
that
charges
filed
against
the
accused
before
the
court-‐martial
were
not
service-‐connected
cannot
stand,
since
the
petitioners
were
not
being
criminally
charged
with
coup
detat
,
the
trial
court
cannot
make
a
filing
against
them
before
the
military
tribunal
for
the
same
thing.
o The
respondents
claim
denial
of
due
process
as
they
were
not
given
an
opportunity
to
oppose
or
comment
on
the
Omnibus
Motion.
They
did
not
receive
a
copy
of
the
Order.
o There
is
an
ambiguity
in
between
the
charges
being
called
not
service-‐connected,
but
on
the
other
hand,
and
the
Omnibus
Motion
being
moot
and
academic.
The
two
pronouncements
were
contradictory.
§ “If
the
Omnibus
Motion
was
already
moot
and
academic,
because
the
accused
who
filed
the
same
were
no
longer
being
charged
with
coup
detat
under
the
Amended
Information,
then
the
trial
court
did
not
have
any
authority
to
further
resolve
and
grant
the
same
Omnibus
Motion.”
o The
RTC
(Branch
148)
acted
without
or
in
excess
of
jurisdiction
§
Section
1
of
Rep.
Act
No.
7055,
states
that
the
petitioners
are
in
fact,
among
those
declared
to
be
service-‐connected
under
the
second
paragraph
of
this
provision.
Which
places
their
case’
jurisdiction
with
the
Military
Tribunal
§ Therefore
their
pronouncement
in
the
Order,
which
subsumed
the
acts
of
the
petitioners
as
not
service-‐connected
is
null
and
void.
o The
petitioners
are
forum
shopping,
since
they
filed
a
similar
petition
(petition
for
habeas
corpus,
prohibition
with
injunction
and
prayer
for
issuance
of
a
temporary
restraining
order
with
the
Court
of
Appeals
(which
was
resolved
against
them).
o
ISSUES
+
RULING:
1.
WON
whether
or
not
the
petitioners
are
entitled
to
the
writs
of
prohibition
and
habeas
corpus.—
NO
• The
Order
of
the
RTC
is
null
but
was
made
without
or
in
excess
of
jurisdiction
o The
order
for
moving
the
jurisdiction
to
the
trial
courts
from
the
military
courts
was
superseded
by
the
Amended
Information
wherein
only
31
were
charged
of
coup
d’état.
§ The
Resolution
of
the
Omnibus
Motion
on
February
11
2004
became
final
and
executory
since
no
Motion
was
filed
against
the
Amended
Information
which
excluded
the
petitioners
from
criminal
charges
• Which
means
that
in
respect
to
the
petitioners,
the
standing
Resolution
was
moot,
since
they
were
no
longer
parties
to
the
case
• This
also
means
that
the
moving
of
the
jurisdiction
is
considered
moot
and
academic
by
virtue
of
the
Motion
accepting
the
Amended
Information
dismissing
the
case
against
TSg.
Leonel
M.
Alnas,
TSg.
Ramon
B.
Norico,
SSg.
Eduardo
G.
Cedeno,
et
al.
and
finding
probable
cause
in
the
Order
dated
November
18,
2003
against
accused
Cpt.
Milo
D.
Maestrecampo,
LtSg.
Antonio
F.
Trillanes
IV,
et
al.,
issued
by
Judge
Barza.
• The
Court
cannot
undo
nor
reverse
the
current
Order
of
November
14,
2003,
and
the
petitioners
as
strangers
to
the
criminal
proceedings,
with
their
actions
not
constituting
coup
d’état,
cannot
find
solace
in
declaration
of
the
RTC’
placing
the
jurisdiction
of
all
the
charges
in
their
jurisdiction
was
superfluous
o **basically
the
RTC
contradicted
itself
when
it
declared
all
the
charges
as
under
their
jurisdiction
when
they
had
already
excluded
the
petitioners’
charges
in
an
earlier
decision
• The
declaration
of
the
RTC
was
in
violation
of
Section
1
RA
No.755
o Section
1
of
Rep.
Act
No.
7055
reads
in
full:
Members
of
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
Philippines
and
other
persons
subject
to
military
law,
including
members
of
the
Citizens
Armed
Forces
Geographical
Units,
who
commit
crimes
or
offenses
penalized
under
the
Revised
Penal
Code,
other
special
penal
laws,
or
local
government
ordinances,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
civilians
are
co-‐accused,
victims,
or
offended
parties
which
may
be
natural
or
juridical
persons,
shall
be
tried
by
the
proper
civil
court,
except
when
the
offense,
as
determined
before
arraignment
by
the
civil
court,
is
service-‐connected,
in
which
case
the
offense
shall
be
tried
by
court-‐martial:
Provided,
That
the
President
of
the
Philippines
may,
in
the
interest
of
justice,
order
or
direct
at
any
time
before
arraignment
that
any
such
crimes
or
offenses
be
tried
by
the
proper
civil
courts.
o As
used
in
this
Section,
service-‐connected
crimes
or
offenses
shall
be
limited
to
those
defined
in
Articles
54
to
70,
Articles
72
to
92,
and
Articles
95
to
97
of
Commonwealth
Act
No.
408,
as
amended.
o The
Court
is
showing
here
that
service-‐connected
crimes
are
explicitly
expressed
as
to
be
in
the
Martial
Tribunal’s
jurisdiction
§ To
further
impress
the
point
the
deliberations
for
the
RA
no.755
when
it
was
a
Senate
Bill
is
cited
Senator
Shahani:
SERVICE-‐CONNECTED
OFFENSES
SHALL
MEAN
THOSE
COMMITTED
BY
MILITARY
PERSONNEL
PURSUANT
TO
THE
LAWFUL
ORDER
OF
THEIR
SUPERIOR
OFFICER
OR
WITHIN
THE
CONTEXT
OF
A
VALID
MILITARY
EXERCISE
OR
MISSION.-‐-‐>
Senator
Taada
refines
the
language
in
an
amendment
but
keeps
the
same
thought
intact
o As
such
the
RTC’s
declaration
is
null
and
void
since
it
was
made
without
or
in
excess
of
jurisdiction
o The
Court
takes
time
to
explain
the
context
of
RA7955
§ President
Marcos
had
earlier
promulgated
presidential
decrees
1822
and
1856
which
placed
the
jurisdiction
of
all
offenses
done
by
the
persons
of
authority
(military
police
firemen
and
jail
guards)
under
military
tribunals’
jurisdiction
when
these
offenses
clearly
belonged
in
civil
courts
• That
allowed
Marcos
and
his
cronies
to
control
outcomes
in
these
cases
in
their
favor
o However
the
RA
does
not
divest
the
military
courts
from
deciding
on
cases
clearly
mandated
by
the
Articles
of
War
DISPOSITION:
Petition
of
Prohibition
against
the
General
Court
Martial
and
Habeas
Corpus
are
Dismissed
for
Lack
of
Merit.
The
General
Court-‐Martial
has
jurisdiction
over
the
charges
filed
against
petitioners
1Lt.
Navales,
et
al.
under
Rep.
Act
No.
7055.
A
writ
of
prohibition
cannot
be
issued
to
prevent
it
from
exercising
its
jurisdiction.