Rapsing vs. Ables

Murder committed by members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines is not a service-connected offense under Republic Act No. 7055 and must be tried by civil courts, jurisdiction being determined by the allegations in the Information and the offense not being among those enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 408.

Members of the Alpha Company, 22nd Infantry Battalion, 9th Division of the Philippine Army, engaged alleged New People’s Army partisans in Sitio Gaway-gaway, Barangay Lagta, Baleno, Masbate, resulting in the deaths of seven individuals. The military reported a legitimate encounter wherein the armed victims initiated a shoot-out. The victims' families contended that no encounter occurred and that the military summarily executed helpless and unarmed civilians. Following an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation, respondents were charged with multiple murder before the Regional Trial Court.

• The Incident: On May 3, 2004, respondents, acting on intelligence regarding the presence of armed NPA partisans, proceeded to Sitio Gaway-gaway after coordinating with the Philippine National Police. An intense firefight ensued, leaving seven individuals dead. The military's post-incident report characterized the event as a legitimate operation where the armed victims engaged the soldiers in a shoot-out.
• The Controversy: Petitioners disputed the military's account, asserting that no encounter occurred and that the victims were summarily executed in cold blood. An NBI investigation resulted in a recommendation to file charges for multiple murder, relying on witness statements that the military massacred helpless and unarmed civilians.
• The Information: On February 15, 2005, the Provincial Prosecutor charged respondents with multiple murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that respondents, conspiring together, taking advantage of superior strength as elements of the Philippine Army, and armed with government-issued firearms, attacked and shot the victims with treachery and evident premeditation, inflicting fatal gunshot wounds.
• Transfer to Military Tribunal: Before respondents could be arrested pursuant to the July 28, 2005 warrant, the JAGO filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the transfer of the case to military jurisdiction. The trial court initially denied the motion but granted it upon reconsideration on December 6, 2005, ordering the entire records turned over to the Commanding General. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on January 11, 2006.

• Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Petitioners argued that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in transferring the criminal case to the military tribunal because Republic Act No. 7055 confers jurisdiction over murder to civil courts.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioners maintained that the trial court erred in ruling that its order could only be reviewed through an appeal, contending that certiorari is proper as no trial on the merits had yet occurred.

• Service-Connected Offense: Respondents, supported by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the acts complained of are service-connected and fall within the jurisdiction of the military court. They relied on the Senate deliberations on R.A. 7055, specifically Senator Shahani's proposed definition of service-connected offenses as those committed pursuant to lawful orders or within the context of a valid military mission.

• Jurisdiction over the Offense: Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in transferring the multiple murder case to the military tribunal.
• Definition of Service-Connected Offense: Whether the crime of multiple murder qualifies as a service-connected offense under Republic Act No. 7055.

• Jurisdiction over the Offense: The trial court gravely abused its discretion in divesting itself of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the Information, irrespective of defenses or motions to dismiss. The Information charges respondents with murder under Article 248 of the RPC, which falls within the RTC's original jurisdiction.
• Definition of Service-Connected Offense: Multiple murder is not a service-connected offense under R.A. 7055. Section 1 of R.A. 7055 explicitly limits service-connected crimes or offenses to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, 72 to 92, and 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408. The broader definition proposed by Senator Shahani during legislative deliberations was not adopted; instead, Senator Tañada's amendment specifically limiting the definition to the enumerated Articles of War was accepted and enacted. Murder is not among the enumerated articles, thereby excluding it from military tribunal jurisdiction.

• Determination of Jurisdiction by Allegations — Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint or Information, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover or the defenses set up in the answer or motions to dismiss. The court's jurisdiction cannot depend upon the defenses or motions presented by the defendant.
• Service-Connected Offenses under R.A. 7055 — Service-connected crimes or offenses are strictly limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, 72 to 92, and 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended. Crimes penalized under the Revised Penal Code, such as murder, are not service-connected unless they fall within this strict enumeration, and must therefore be tried by proper civil courts.

• "Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed. There is no room for interpretation, but only application."
• "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."

• Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 142, G.R. No. 165744 — Followed for the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
• Cadimas v. Carrion, G.R. No. 180394 — Followed for the principle that jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or a motion to dismiss.
• Navales v. Abaya, G.R. Nos. 162318 and 162341 — Followed for the legislative history of R.A. 7055, specifically the Senate deliberations showing that Senator Shahani's broader definition of "service-connected" was rejected in favor of Senator Tañada's amendment limiting it to specific Articles of War.
• Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158014 — Followed for the rule that where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines the crime of murder. Applied to establish that the crime charged in the Information falls under the jurisdiction of the civil courts, not the military tribunal.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 7055 — Provides that members of the AFP who commit crimes penalized under the RPC shall be tried by proper civil courts, except when the offense is service-connected. Applied to mandate that murder, not being a service-connected offense under the law's strict enumeration, must be tried by the RTC.
• Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War), Articles 54-70, 72-92, 95-97 — Enumerates the exclusive list of service-connected offenses. Applied to demonstrate that murder is excluded from military tribunal jurisdiction.
• Section 20, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Grants Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court. Applied to confirm the RTC's jurisdiction over the murder charge.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza.