8/9/2019 Trillanes IV vs Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/trillanes-iv-vs-comelec 1/2

Trillanes IV vs. Pimentel

G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008

Election to Congress is not a reasonable

classifcation in criminal law enorcement as the

unctions and duties o the oce are not

substantial distinctions which lit one rom the

class o prisoners interrupted in their reedom

and restricted in liberty o movement.

 Justifcation or confnement with its underlying

rationale o public sel-deense applies equally to

detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted

prisoners-appellants like Jalosos.

FAT!"

!etitioner "rillanes #$ is on trial or coup d%etat in

relation to the &'akwood #ncident.( #n the )**+

elections, he won a seat in the enate with a si-

year term commencing at noon on June /*, )**+.!etitioner now asks the Court that he be allowed

to attend all ocial unctions o the enate,

alleging mainly that his case is distinct rom that

o Jalosos as his case is still pending resolution

whereas that in the Jalosos case, there was

already conviction.

0ntonio "rillanes won a seat in the enate while

being under detention or staging an alleged coup

d%etat. 1eore the commencement o his term, his

ellow opposition enators fled a motion to allow

him to attend enate sessions and perorm his

duties as senator. #t was argued that there is a

world o di2erence between his case and that o 

 Jalosos respecting the type o o2ense involved,

the stage o fling o the motion, and other

circumstances which demonstrate the

inapplicability o Jalosos.

 "rillanes posits that his election provides the legal

 ustifcation to allow him to serve his mandate,

ater the people, in their sovereign capacity,

elected him as enator. 3e argues that denyinghis 'mnibus 4otion is tantamount to removing

him rom oce, depriving the people o proper

representation, denying the people%s will,

repudiating the people%s choice, and overruling

the mandate o the people.

4oreover, he pleads or the same liberal

treatment accorded certain detention prisoners

who have also been charged with non-bailable

o2enses, like ormer !resident Joseph Estrada and

ormer 5overnor 6ur 4isuari who were allowed to

attend &social unctions.( 0re the contentions o

 "rillanes tenable7

I!!#$8

9hether or not valid classifcation betweenpetitioner and Jalosos eists

R#%ING"

 "he petition is beret o merit.

#n attempting to strike a distinction between his

case and that o Jalosos, petitioner chie:y points

out that ormer ;ep. ;omeo Jalosos <Jalosos= was

already convicted, albeit his conviction was

pending appeal, when he fled a motion similar to

petitioner>s 'mnibus 4otion, whereas he

<petitioner= is a mere detention prisoner. 3e

asserts that he continues to enoy civil and

political rights since the presumption o

innocence is still in his avor.

?urther, petitioner illustrates that Jalosos was

charged with crimes involving moral turpitude

i.e., two counts o statutory rape and si counts

o acts o lasciviousness, whereas he is indicted

or coup d>etat which is regarded as a @politica

o2ense.@

?urthermore, petitioner ustifes in his avor the

presence o noble causes in epressing legitimate

grievances against the rampant and

institutionaliAed practice o grat and corruption

in the 0?!.

0 plain reading o Jalosos suggests otherwisehowever.

 "he distinctions cited by petitioner were not

elemental in the pronouncement in Jalosos that

election to Congress is not a reasonable

classifcation in criminal law enorcement as the

unctions and duties o the oce are no

substantial distinctions which lit one rom the

class o prisoners interrupted in their reedom

and restricted in liberty o movement.

8/9/2019 Trillanes IV vs Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/trillanes-iv-vs-comelec 2/2

#t cannot be gainsaid that a person charged with

a crime is taken into custody or purposes o the

administration o ustice. 6o less than the

Constitution provides8

0ll persons, ecept those charged with o2enses

punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence

o guilt is strong, shall, beore conviction, be

bailable by sucient sureties, or be released on

recogniAance as may be provided by law. "he

right to bail shall not be impaired even when the

privilege o the writ o habeas corpus is

suspended. Ecessive bail shall not be required.

<Bnderscoring supplied=

 "he ;ules also state that no person charged with

a capital o2ense, or an o2ense punishable by

reclusion perpetua or lie imprisonment, shall be

admitted to bail when evidence o guilt is strong,

regardless o the stage o the criminal action.

 "hat the cited provisions apply equally to rape

and coup d>etat cases, both being punishable by

reclusion perpetua, is beyond cavil. 9ithin the

class o o2enses covered by the stated range o 

imposable penalties, there is clearly no distinction

as to the political compleion o or moral

turpitude involved in the crime charged.

#n the present case, it is uncontroverted that

petitioner>s application or bail and or release on

recogniAance was denied. "he determination that

the evidence o guilt is strong, whetherascertained in a hearing o an application or bail

or imported rom a trial court>s udgment o 

conviction, ustifes the detention o an accused

as a valid curtailment o his right to provisional

liberty. "his accentuates the proviso that the

denial o the right to bail in such cases is

@regardless o the stage o the criminal action.@

uch ustifcation or confnement with its

underlying rationale o public sel-deense applies

equally to detention prisoners like petitioner o

convicted prisoners-appellants like Jalosos.

!etitioner goes on to allege that unlike Jalosos

who attempted to evade trial, he is not a :ight

risk since he voluntarily surrendered to the proper

authorities and such can be proven by the

numerous times he was allowed to travel outside

his place o detention.

ubsequent events reveal the contrary, however

 "he assailed 'rders augured well when on

6ovember ), )**+ petitioner went past security

detail or some reason and proceeded rom the

courtroom to a posh hotel to issue certain

statements. "he account, dubbed this time as the

@4anila !en #ncident,@ proves that petitioner>s

argument bites the dust. "he risk that he would

escape ceased to be neither remote nor nil as, in

act, the cause or oreboding became real.

4oreover, circumstances indicating probability o

:ight fnd relevance as a actor in ascertaining

the reasonable amount o bail and in cancelling a

discretionary grant o bail. #n cases involving non

bailable o2enses, what is controlling is thedetermination o whether the evidence o guilt is

strong. 'nce it is established that it is so, bai

shall be denied as it is neither a matter o right

nor o discretion