View full case

ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV v. OSCAR PIMENTEL

FACTS:

In July 2003, more than 300 soldiers staged a coup at the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City, demanding the resignation of the President and other key officials. In response, the President declared a state of rebellion and called on the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. One of the soldiers involved, Antonio Trillanes IV, was charged with coup d'etat before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.

In June 2007, before his term as a senator began, Trillanes filed an Omnibus Motion requesting permission to attend Senate sessions and carry out his duties as a senator while his case was ongoing. He argued that he should be allowed to attend the Senate as he enjoys the presumption of innocence, unlike the accused in the Jalosjos case who had already been convicted. Trillanes also claimed that his case involved a political offense, while Jalosjos was charged with crimes involving moral turpitude. He expressed his grievances against corruption in the military as noble causes.

However, the trial court denied all of Trillanes' requests. Trillanes then filed a petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the trial court's orders and for prohibition and mandamus to gain access to the Senate and its functions. He also requested to maintain the status quo in terms of convening his staff, resource persons, and guests at his place of detention. It was mentioned in his reply that Trillanes had been in the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center since November 2007, leading to the cessation of the action against the military officers involved.

The court noted that Trillanes' arguments did not justify a different ruling from the Jalosjos case, which held that an elected position does not entitle a detainee to special treatment. The court emphasized that the presumption of innocence and the political nature of the offense were not substantial enough distinctions to lift Trillanes from the class of prisoners. The court affirmed that a person charged with a crime is taken into custody for the administration of justice, and the functions and duties of an elected office do not provide significant grounds for exemption.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is a distinction between the case of the petitioner and the case of Jalosjos regarding the type of offense involved and other circumstances.

  2. Whether the denial of bail and release on recognizance is justified.

  3. Whether the presumption of innocence applies to the petitioner.

  4. Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner even though he is charged with a non-bailable offense.

  5. Whether the petitioner's request to attend Senate sessions should be granted.

  6. Whether the petitioner's election as Senator justifies his request to serve his mandate while in detention.

  7. Whether the denial of the petitioner's request to attend Senate sessions violates the equal protection clause.

  8. Whether or not the grant of house arrest to the petitioner is proper.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that there is no distinction between the case of the petitioner and the case of Jalosjos. The distinctions cited by the petitioner do not affect the ruling in Jalosjos that election to Congress is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement.

  2. The Supreme Court ruled that the denial of bail and release on recognizance is justified as the evidence of guilt is strong. The determination of strong evidence of guilt at any stage of the criminal action justifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to provisional liberty.

  3. The Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence applies to the petitioner as long as a final conviction has not been promulgated. The trial court correctly concluded that the presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political rights.

  4. The court denies the petitioner's request for bail, as it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong.

  5. The court upholds the trial court's decision to deny the petitioner's request to attend Senate sessions, as it falls within the reasonable measures necessary to secure the safety and prevent the escape of the detainee.

  6. The court rejects the petitioner's argument that his election as Senator justifies his request to serve his mandate while in detention, as the doctrine of condonation does not apply to criminal cases.

  7. The court dismisses the petitioner's claim of a violation of the equal protection clause, as he intentionally did not seek preferential treatment and complainants about the granting of house arrest to others.

  8. The petition was dismissed. The court held that emergency or temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed to prisoners, but the petitioner failed to establish that there was an abuse of discretion in the denial of his request for house arrest. The court noted that the petitioner had been granted several prior concessions and authorizations, and he was seeking unending concessions and blanket authorizations, which would essentially make him a free man with all the privileges of his position as a senator. Allowing such an arrangement would elevate the petitioner's status to that of a special class and would be a mockery of the correction system.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The functions and duties of the office of a congressman are not substantial distinctions that lift one from the class of prisoners who are restricted in their freedom and liberty of movement, regarding the denial of bail and release on recognizance.

  • The denial of the right to bail is justified regardless of the stage of the criminal action, as long as the evidence of guilt is strong.

  • The presumption of innocence applies until a final conviction is made.

  • The inherent limitations of confinement in terms of the enjoyment of civil and political rights must be taken into account only to the extent that it restrains the power of locomotion or actual physical movement.

  • The risk of flight becomes relevant in determining the reasonable amount of bail and in canceling a discretionary grant.

  • In cases involving non-bailable offenses, the grant of bail is determined by the strength of the evidence of guilt.

  • Security concerns and the effective management of detention facilities may justify the imposition of conditions and restrictions on pre-trial detention.

  • The doctrine of condonation does not apply to criminal cases, and re-election does not absolve an elected official of criminal charges.

  • The mandate of the people yields to the Constitution and the rule of law.

  • The performance of duties by public officers does not excuse a person from valid imprisonment.

  • The denial of certain privileges or requests to detention prisoners does not necessarily violate the equal protection clause.

  • Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed, but this discretion should not be abused.

  • The grant of privileges to prisoners should not elevate their status or undermine the purposes of the correction system.