G.R. No.

164007

Gonzalez et al. v. Gen. Abaya

August 10, 2006

Lt. (Sg) Eugene Gonzales, Lt. (Sg) Andy Torrato,

Gen. Narciso Abaya, in his capacity as Chief of
Lt. (Sg) Antonio Trillanes IV, Cpt. Gary Alejano, Lt. Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and B.
(Sg) James Layug, Cpt. Gerardo Gambala, Cpt.
Gen. Mariano M. Sarmiento, Jr., in his capacity as
Nicanor Faeldon, Lt. (Sg) Manuel Cabochan, Ens.
the Judge Advocate General of the Judge Advocate
Armand Pontejos, Lt. (Jg) Arturo Pascua, and 1Lt.
Generals Office (JAGO),
Jonnel Sanggalang,
respondents
petitioners
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
FACTS:
On July 27, 2003 at around 1:00 a.m., more than 300 heavily armed junior officers and enlisted men of the
AFP entered the premises of the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments on Ayala Avenue, Makati City.
They disarmed the security guards and planted explosive devices around the building. They declared their
withdrawal of support from their Commander-in-Chief and called for her resignation and her cabinet
members.
President Arroyo declared a state of rebellion (Proclamation No. 427) and directed the AFP and PNP (Gen.
Order No. 4) to suppress the rebellion. The negotiators sent by the government succeeded in convincing
a total of 321 soldiers to lay down their arms and defuse the explosives placed around the premises of the
Oakwood Apartments.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigated the incident and recommended that the military
personnel involved be charged with coup detat. Pursuant to Article 70 of the Articles of War, respondent
General Narciso Abaya ordered the arrest and detention of the soldiers involved in the Oakwood incident
and directed the AFP to conduct its own separate investigation.
On August 5, 2003, the DOJ filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City an Information for coup
detat against those soldiers.
On the same date, respondent Chief of Staff (Letter Order No. 625) created a Pre-Trial Investigation Panel
tasked to determine the propriety of filing with the military tribunal charges for violations of the Articles
of War under Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, against the same military personnel. Specifically,
the charges are: (a) violation of Article 63 for disrespect toward the President, the Secretary of National
Defense, etc., (b) violation of Article 64 for disrespect toward a superior officer, (c) violation of Article 67
for mutiny or sedition, (d) violation of Article 96 for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and
(e) violation of Article 97 for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.
Of the original 321 accused, 148 filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the said trial court assume
jurisdiction over all the charges filed with the military tribunal invoking Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7055.
In its Initial Report, the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel recommended that the military personnel involved
in the Oakwood incident be charged before a general court martial with violations of Articles 63, 64, 67,
96, and 97 of the Articles of War. In its Final Pre-Trial Investigation Report to the JAGO, it recommended
that, following the "doctrine of absorption," those charged with coup detat before the RTC should not be
charged before the military tribunal for violation of the Articles of War.
The DOJ, after conducting a reinvestigation, found probable cause against only 31 of the 321 accused and
filed with the RTC an Amended Information, which the RTC admitted so it dropped the charge of coup
detat against the 290 accused.

G.R. No. 164007

Gonzalez et al. v. Gen. Abaya

August 10, 2006

The RTC issued an Order stating that "all charges before the court martial against the accusedare hereby
declared not service-connected, but rather absorbed and in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup detat."
The trial court then proceeded to hear petitioners applications for bail.
Colonel Julius A. Magno(OIC of the JAGO), reviewed the findings of the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel
and recommended that 29 of the officers involved in the Oakwood incident be prosecuted before a general
court martial for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles
of War. The recommendation was approved by the AFP top brass. Instead of complying, the petitioners
filed the instant Petition for Prohibition praying that respondents be ordered to desist from charging them
with violation of Article 96 of the Articles of War in relation to the Oakwood incident.
Petitioners maintain that since the RTC has made a determination in its Order of February 11, 2004 that
the offense for violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of
War is not service-connected, but is absorbed in the crime of coup detat, the military tribunal cannot compel
them to submit to its jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the Conduct of Unbecoming an Officer (Article 96 of the Articles of War) is serviceconnected and therefore cognizable by the court martial.
(2) Whether or not the charge of Conduct of Unbecoming an Officer is absorbed in the crime of coup detat.
HELD:
(1) Yes. The Conduct of Unbecoming an Officer is service-connected and therefore cognizable by the court
martial.
o This is expressly provided in Section 1 (second paragraph) of R.A. No. 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. In short, the charge has a bearing on
their professional conduct or behavior as military officers. Equally indicative of the "serviceconnected" 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.
(2) No. The Conduct of Unbecoming an Officer is not absorbed in the crime of coup detat.
o The RTCs declaration that the act complained of is "not service-connected, but rather absorbed and
in furtherance of the alleged crime of coup detat,", practically amended the law which expressly vests in
the court martial the jurisdiction over "service-connected crimes or offenses." What the law has
conferred the court should not take away. It is only the Constitution or the law that bestows jurisdiction
on the court, tribunal, body or officer over the subject matter or nature of an action which can do so.
And it is only through a constitutional amendment or legislative enactment that such act can be done.
The first and fundamental duty of the courts is merely to apply the law "as they find it, not as they like
it to be." Evidently, such declaration by the RTC constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to
lack or excess of jurisdiction and is, therefore, void.
The trial court aggravated its error when it justified its ruling by holding that the charge of Conduct
Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman is absorbed and in furtherance to the alleged crime of coup
detat. Firstly, the doctrine of absorption of crimes is peculiar to criminal law and generally applies to

G.R. No. 164007

Gonzalez et al. v. Gen. Abaya

August 10, 2006

crimes punished by the same statute, unlike here where different statutes are involved. Secondly, the
doctrine applies only if the trial court has jurisdiction over both offenses. Here, Section 1 of R.A. 7055
deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over service-connected offenses, including Article 96 of the Articles of
War. Thus, the doctrine of absorption of crimes is not applicable to this case.