GR 92606; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92606 ; July 26, 1991
MAJOR ZOSIMO R. MAGNO and CAPTAIN ROSARIO J. TAMAYO, petitioners, vs. GENERAL RENATO DE VILLA, in his capacity as Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, COMMODORE PROCESO FERNANDEZ, Chairman of Court Martial No. 6, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, AFP officers, were charged before General Court Martial No. 6 (GCM 6) with violations of Articles of War (AW) 94 (in relation to Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for Malversation), AW 95 (Frauds against the Government), and AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) concerning the alleged misappropriation of government funds. During their arraignment, petitioners, through counsel, moved to quash the Charge Sheet on the constitutional ground that it charged more than one offense, thereby depriving them of their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The GCM 6 denied their motion. When petitioners subsequently refused to enter a plea, the court martial proceeded to enter a plea of not guilty on their behalf and continued with the proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether General Court Martial No. 6 committed jurisdictional errors (1) in not dismissing the Charge Sheet for duplicity of offenses, and (2) in proceeding with the arraignment and entering a plea of not guilty for petitioners after they refused to plead.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no jurisdictional error. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the prohibition against duplicitous complaints under the Rules of Court does not apply with full force to courts-martial proceedings, which are governed primarily by the Articles of War and the Manual for Courts-Martial. The charges, while constituting separate offenses under the Articles of War, arose from a single series of connected acts or transactions involving the same fund. The Manual permits such joinder of offenses, and the constitutional right to be informed is satisfied as the Charge Sheet contained sufficient specifications detailing the facts alleged. On the second issue, the Court held that the court martial acted correctly. Under Article 21 of the Articles of War and the corresponding Manual provision, if an accused refuses to plead, the court must enter a plea of not guilty and proceed to trial. This procedure is a valid exercise of the court martial’s jurisdiction and does not violate any constitutional right of the accused.