20 - 556 SCRA 471 - Trillanes v. Pimentel (Re-Election To Office and Criminal Charge)

ANTONIO F.
TRILLANES IV, petitioner,

vs.
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, respondents.
G.R. No. 179817 | June 27, 2008 | Carpio Morales, J.

KEYWORDS: re-election to office and criminal charge
PROCEDURE
Respondents: Hon. Oscar Pimentel, et al. Who filed it: Antonio F. Trillanes IV
Petition for certiorari, prohibition,
Nature of the case: Decision: The petition was denied
and mandamus
FACTS
1. About four (4) years after being charged with coup d’état in view of the Oakwood Incident, Trillanes, while
still in detention, ran and won a Senate seat in the 2007 elections.
2. Before the commencement of his term, Trillanes filed with RTC Makati an Omnibus Motion for Leave of
Court to Attend Senate Sessions, through which he requested to attend all Senate functions and activities,
set up a working area at his place of detention, as well as receive and entertain guests, members of his
staff, and the media.
3. The trial court denied all his requests, prompting him to file a Motion for Reconsideration (MR). However,
his MR was also denied.
4. Trillanes then filed a petition for certiorari to set aside trial court decisions, and for prohibition and
mandamus to enjoin the respondents from banning people from meeting and transacting business with him
in his capacity as Senator. Among his manifestations were the following:
(a) Unlike in the Jalosjos case:
• He has not been convicted and enjoys the presumption of innocence
• He was charged with a political offense and not with a crime involving moral turpitude
• He voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and did not attempt to flee prior to being arrested
(b) Liberal treatment has previously been accorded to detention prisoners who are held without bail as in
the case of former President Estrada and former ARMM Gov. Nur Misuari.
(c) People elected him in their sovereign capacity, by virtue of which he should be allowed to work and
serve his mandate as a Senator. He cited the doctrine of administrative law that “a public official
cannot 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."
ISSUE
Whether or not Trillanes’ election as a Senator accords him certain detention privileges in the discharge of his official
functions. NO.
/A. Rollon
RATIONALE
1. Election to Congress is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement, and does not lift one
from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement.
2. Trillanes was charged with a non-bailable offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, which meant that the
evidence of his guilt was strong, and circumstances indicated probability of escape/flight. His detention,
therefore, was rooted in the rationale of public self-defense.
3. As held in People v. Hon. Maceda, “all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final
sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective
or appointive, while in detention.”
4. The case against Trillanes was not administrative in nature, and there was no prior term to speak of. The
doctrine of condonation does not apply to criminal cases. Election, or more precisely, re-election to office,
does not obliterate a criminal charge.
When people elected him, "they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action
[and] x x x with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could
accomplish within the confines of prison."
HELD/DISPOSITIVE
Trillanes’ petition was denied.
RECITATION SCRIPT
The case was about Trillanes’ Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Attend Senate Sessions, which he filed with
Makati RTC while in detention, and after winning the Senatorial race in 2007. In the said motion, he requested to be
allowed to attend all Senate functions and activities, set up a working area at his place of detention, as well as receive
and entertain guests and the media, in line with the discharge of his duties as Senator. The trial court denied all his
requests, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Among his arguments in the petition
was the doctrine of condonation in the administrative law, which states that winning the mandate of people through
re-election operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct during his prior term.
One of the issues, therefore, is whether or not his election as senator constitutes a condonation by the people of the
offense charged against him, and accords him preferential treatment in the discharge of his official functions.
The court denied his petition, holding that Trillanes’ case was not administrative, and the doctrine of condonation is
not applicable to criminal cases. Election or re-election to office does not obliterate a criminal charge. Furthermore,
it was held that when people elected him, they did so with full awareness and knowledge of his limited freedom of
action.
/A. Rollon

20 - 556 SCRA 471 - Trillanes v. Pimentel (Re-Election To Office and Criminal Charge)

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

20 - 556 SCRA 471 - Trillanes v. Pimentel (Re-Election To Office and Criminal Charge)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTONIO F.

TRILLANES IV, petitioner,

G.R. No. 179817 | June 27, 2008 | Carpio Morales, J.

Trillanes’ petition was denied.

You might also like