Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Rapsing Vs Ables

    Uploaded by

    Maria
    This case involves a petition filed by the widows of three men who were allegedly killed by members of the Philippine Army without provocation. The Provincial Prosecutor initially recommended filing murder charges against the army members in civil court. However, the military sought to have the case transferred to a military tribunal. The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the murder case, as murder is a crime under the Revised Penal Code and not an enumerated "service-connected" offense under the law that allows some crimes committed by military members to be tried in a military court. The Supreme Court therefore granted the petition and directed the civil court to reinstate the murder case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rapsing Vs Ables

    Uploaded by

    Maria
    60 views3 pages
    This case involves a petition filed by the widows of three men who were allegedly killed by members of the Philippine Army without provocation. The Provincial Prosecutor initially recommended filing murder charges against the army members in civil court. However, the military sought to have the case transferred to a military tribunal. The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the murder case, as murder is a crime under the Revised Penal Code and not an enumerated "service-connected" offense under the law that allows some crimes committed by military members to be tried in a military court. The Supreme Court therefore granted the petition and directed the civil court to reinstate the murder case.

    Original Title

    rapsing vs ables

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by the widows of three men who were allegedly killed by members of the Philippine Army without provocation. The Provincial Prosecutor initially recommended filing murder charges against the army members in civil court. However, the military sought to have the case transferred to a military tribunal. The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the murder case, as murder is a crime under the Revised Penal Code and not an enumerated "service-connected" offense under the law that allows some crimes committed by military members to be tried in a military court. The Supreme Court therefore granted the petition and directed the civil court to reinstate the murder case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views3 pages

    Rapsing Vs Ables

    Uploaded by

    Maria
    This case involves a petition filed by the widows of three men who were allegedly killed by members of the Philippine Army without provocation. The Provincial Prosecutor initially recommended filing murder charges against the army members in civil court. However, the military sought to have the case transferred to a military tribunal. The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the murder case, as murder is a crime under the Revised Penal Code and not an enumerated "service-connected" offense under the law that allows some crimes committed by military members to be tried in a military court. The Supreme Court therefore granted the petition and directed the civil court to reinstate the murder case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    RAPSING VS ABLES

    Facts:

    The antecedents are as follows:


    Respondents SSgt. Edison Rural, CAA Jose Matu, CAA Morie Flores,
    CAA Guillien Topas, CAA Dandy Flores, CAA Leonardo Calimutan and
    CAA Rene Rom are members of the Alpha Company, 22nd Infantry
    Battalion, 9th Division of the Philippine Army based at Cabangcalan
    Detachment, Aroroy, Masbate.
    Petitioners, on the other hand, are the widows of Teogenes Rapsing,
    Teofilo Villanueva and Edwin Aparejado, who were allegedly killed in cold
    blood by the respondents.

    Respondents alleged that on May 3, 2004 at 1pm they received information about
    the presence of NPA partisans in Sitio Gaway-Gaway, Baarangay Lagta, Baleno,
    Masbate. Acting on information, they coordinated with PNP and proceeded to the
    place. Thereat they encountered armed elements resulting in intense firefight, after
    which 7 persons were found lifeless. Post-incident report of the army states that it
    was a legit military op.

    Petitioners complaind that there was no encounter and victims were summarily
    executed. NBI recommended prov. Prosecutor of masate that a preliminary
    investigation be conducted. NBI based his recommendation on statement of
    witness that military massacred unarmed civilinas.

    Prov. Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending filing of info for multiple


    murder, of which respondents were charged in an information. But before
    respondents could be arrested the JAGO of the armed forces filed omnibus motion
    seeking the cases to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the military tribuan.
    Initially the court denied, but later granted the OM and transferred record of the
    case to the commanding gen. of the 9th infantry dision of AFP.

    Petioners sought reconsideration but was denied. Pet elevated petition to the SC

    Issue: won the military court martial has jurisdiction over the instant murder case

    Petition is meritorious. MCM has no jurisdiction over the caase.

    It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the


    subject matter of the case is conferred by law and is determined by the
    allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to
    recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.14 As a necessary
    consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon
    the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for
    otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon
    the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of
    the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The
    averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the
    matters to be consulted.

    Respondens contend that military tribunal has jurisdiction over the case because it
    was a service-connected offense.

    Sec 1 of RA 7055 provides that:


    Section 1. 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 courtmartial:
    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.

    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. Section 1. 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 courtmartial:
    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.
    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.

    The military tribunal has no jurisdiction over the present cse because it is not included in the
    enumeration of service-connected offsenes.

    When the law is clear and unambigious, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the
    court has no choice but to see tho it that its mandate is obeyed

    Murder is a crime punishable under Article


    248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and is within the
    jurisdiction of the RTC.17 Hence, irrespective of whether the killing was
    actually justified or not, jurisdiction to try the crime charged against the
    respondents has been vested upon the RTC by law.

    Petition granted. Rtc directed to reinstate criminal case.

    You might also like