Trillanes v. People - Digest

ANTONIO TRILLANES IV v.
PEOPLE
G.R. No. 179817 June 27, 2008
PETITIONER: TRILLANES
RESPONDENTS: HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT- BRANCH 148, MAKATI CITY; GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, VICE
ADM. ROGELIO I. CALUNSAG, MGEN. BENJAMIN DOLORFINO, AND LT. COL. LUCIARDO OBEÑA
Facts:
On July 27, 2003, 300 soldiers led by Jr. officers of the AFP stormed into the Oakwood
Apartments and publicly demanded the resignation of the President and Key Officials. Later in the day,
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4 declaring a
state of rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. Petitioner then was charged
along with the soldiers with coup d’etat defined under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
4 years later, petitioner, who is still in detention, won a seat in the senate with a 6 year term commencing
at noon on June 30, 2007.
Petitioner filed with the RTC an "Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate
Sessions and Related Requests"
a. To go to the Senate to attend all official functions of the Senate

b. To set up a working area at his place of detention
c. To be allowed to receive members of his staff at said detention
d. To be allowed to give interviews and air his comments
e. To be allowed to received media, reporters and other who wish to interview him
f. To be allowed to attend meetings of the Senate
RTC Denied all requests in the Omnibus Motion. Petitioner moved to reconsideration in which he trimmed
down his request and waived paragraphs (b), (c), and (f). The RTC just the same denied the motion.
Hence, the present petition for certiorari.
Issue:
THE JURISPRUDENCE CITED BY THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO IS CLEARLY

INAPPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
A. UNLIKE IN THIS CASE, THE ACCUSED IN THE JALOSJOS CASE WAS ALREADY
CONVICTED AT THE TIME HE FILED HIS MOTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE,
ACCUSED/PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED AND, THEREFORE, STILL
ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE;
B. ACCUSED/PETITIONER IS CHARGED WITH THE OFFENSE OF "COUP D’ETAT", A
CHARGE WHICH IS COMMONLY REGARDED AS A POLITICAL OFFENSE;
C. PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED TO THE AUTHORITIES AND AGREED TO
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTS AT OAKWOOD;
ACCUSED/PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR

SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, ELECTED HIM TO THE POSITION OF SENATOR OF THE REPUBLIC
PROVIDES THE PROPER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ALLOW HIM TO WORK AND SERVE HIS
MANDATE AS A SENATOR;
Petitioner’s Contention:
Petitioner later manifested, in his Reply of February 26, 2008, that he has, since November 30,
2007, been in the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center following the foiled
take-over of the Manila Peninsula Hotel the day before or on November 29, 2007, thus dictates the
discontinuation of the action as against the above-named military officers-respondents. The issues raised
in relation to them had ceased to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination thereof would
be without practical value and use.
Rep. Romeo Jalosjos (Jalosjos) was already convicted, albeit his conviction was pending appeal,
when he filed a motion similar to petitioner’s Omnibus Motion, whereas he (petitioner) is a mere detention
prisoner. He asserts that he continues to enjoy civil and political rights since the presumption of
innocence is still in his favor.
1
Ruling:
The petition is bereft of merit. t cannot be gainsaid that a person charged with a crime is taken
into custody for purposes of the administration of justice. No less than the Constitution provides:
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. That the cited provisions apply
equally to rape and coup d’etat cases, both being punishable by reclusion perpetua,
in People v. Hon. Maceda:
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under
the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to
answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the
case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance.
Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence
can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective
or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention.
The trial court thus correctly concluded that the presumption of innocence does not carry with it
the full enjoyment of civil and political rights.
petitioner posits that his election provides the legal justification to allow him to serve his mandate, after
the people, in their sovereign capacity, elected him as Senator. He argues that denying his Omnibus
Motion is tantamount to removing him from office, depriving the people of proper representation, denying
the people’s will, repudiating the people’s choice, and overruling the mandate of the people.
Petitioner’s contention hinges on the doctrine in administrative law that "a public official can not be
removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office
operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to
remove him therefor."42
The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has
never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the
"mandate of the people" are multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to
legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. The accused-appellant is only one
of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of the
Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to function well in the
physical absence of one or a few of its members. x x x Never has the call of a particular
duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly
restrained by law.
Lastly, petitioner pleads for the same liberal treatment accorded certain detention prisoners who
have also been charged with non-bailable offenses, like former President Joseph Estrada and former
Governor Nur Misuari who were allowed to attend "social functions." Finding no rhyme and reason in the
denial of the more serious request to perform the duties of a Senator, petitioner harps on an alleged
violation of the equal protection clause.
Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the
discretion of the authorities or upon court orders. That this discretion was gravely abused, petitioner failed
to establish. Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings for
five (5) days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his
position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class,
it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.

Trillanes v. People - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trillanes v. People - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trillanes v. People - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTONIO TRILLANES IV v.

a. To go to the Senate to attend all official functions of the Senate

THE JURISPRUDENCE CITED BY THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO IS CLEARLY

ACCUSED/PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR

in People v. Hon. Maceda:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.