CA grants Trillanes plea to overturn rebellion case
(File Photo) Former Senator Trillanes
MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals has granted the plea of former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV to set aside a Makati court’s ruling that reinstated the rebellion case against him.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals 6th Division reversed the September 25 and December 2018 ruling of Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 150 Judge Elmo Alameda.
In its September 25, 2018 order, Alameda upheld the legality of President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 572, which revoked the grant of amnesty to Trillanes by former President Aquino through Proclamation No. 75.
The ruling gave way for the DOJ’s motion to reopen the rebellion case, the issuance of an arrest warrant, and a hold departure order against the senator.
On Dec. 18, 2018, the trial court junked Trillanes’ motion for reconsideration of the September 25, 2018 order.
Article continues after this advertisementThe lower court, in both orders, maintained that Trillanes failed to prove that he actually applied to be granted amnesty and that he expressly admitted his guilt to the crimes committed on the Manila Peninsula takeover as required under Proclamation No. 75.
Article continues after this advertisementThe case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals.
The appeals court, in its 59-page decision penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr., affirmed the constitutionality of Proclamation 572, but it pointed out that the DOJ failed to comply with the procedural rules in assailing the validity of the Makati RTC’s dismissal of the rebellion case in 2011.
“In the criminal case subject of herein petition, the prosecution did not file an action for the annulment of or for relief from the Order of September 7, 2011, nor did it move for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to invalidate the said order. The alleged void Order, which dismissed the rebellion charge, was attacked only through the Omnibus Motion filed in the same case, which prayed for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and hold departure order against the petitioner,” the Appeals Court said.
