ANTONIO TRILLANES VS. HON.

OSCAR PIMENTEL,
G.R. NO. 179817, JUNE 27, 2008

FACTS: Antonio Trillanes was charged with coup d’etat before the Regional trial Court of
Makati due to his participation on the July 27, 2003 oakwood incident which more than 300
heavily armed soldiers stormed into oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati and publicly
demanded the resignation of the President and key officials. Trillanes remained in detention,
however, he ran as a Senator and won a seat in the Senate. Before the start of his term as Senator,
Trillanes filed with the RTC of Makati an Omnibus Motion to leave of Court to be allowed to
attend Senate Sessions and be allowed to perform his function as Senator. The RTC denied his
motion. Thus, he filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the orders of
the lower Court.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Trillanes’ case is different from Jalosjos Case
2. Whether or not Trillanes’ election as Senator provides legal justification to allow him
to work and serve his mandate as Senator.
3. Whether or not there are enough precedents that allows for a liberal treatment of
detention prisoners who are held without bail.

HELD:
NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRILLANES AND JALOSJOS CASE

The distinction cited by petitioner-TRILLANES were not element in the pronouncement

in Jalosjos case that election to Congress is not a reasonable classification in Criminal law
enforcement as functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift one
from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement.

The Constitution provides: All persons, except those charged with offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be release on recognizance as may be provided by the law. The Rules also
state that no person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal action. The cited provisions apply equally to rape and coup
d’etat cases, both being punishable by reclusion perpetua, is beyond cavil. Within the class of
offense covered by the stated range of imposable penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to
the political complexion of or moral turpitute involved in the crime charged. In the present case,
it is uncontroverted that the petitioner’s applicaton for bail and for release on recognizance was
denied. The determination that the evidence of guilt is strong, whether ascertained in a hearing
of an application for bail or imported from trial court’s judgement of conviction, justifies the
detention of an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. This accentuates
the proviso that the denial of the right to bail in such cases “regardless of the stage of the
criminal action”.
 Petitioner’s position fails. On the generality and permanence of his requests alone,
petitioner’s case fails to compare with the species of allowable leaves. Jalosjos succinctly
expounds:

X x x Allowing accused-appelant to attent 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-
appelant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the
correction system.

PETITION DISMISSED.