Two contrasting rulings

Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 150 Presiding Judge Elmo Alameda has not budged an inch on his original resolution ordering the arrest, albeit with bail, of outgoing Sen. Antonio Trillanes and reopening the case of rebellion against the then coup leader.

Alameda stated, in denying the appeal of Trillanes, that the former Naval officer failed to prove the existence of the alleged amnesty application form admitting his guilt in the crime which is at the root of the case against the senator.

The same issue in the case was filed by the Department of Justice against Trillanes, this time for the crime of coup d’état mounted by Trillanes and his rebel soldiers, which is a non-bailable crime.

However, the presiding judge in the Makati RTC 148 rejected reopening the case, despite the fact that the case rested on the very same issue, which is the existence of the original of the application for amnesty, which Trillanes failed to produce, despite his claim that he had filed one.

Judge Alameda, hearing the rebellion case, approved the government’s plea for the issuance of warrant and travel ban against Trillanes, holding that the accused Trillanes had “failed to convince the court that he indeed complied with the minimum requirement” in applying for amnesty.

He also held in his decision on the senator’s appeal that the issues raised by Trillanes “have been thoroughly and exhaustively passed upon by this court in its assailed order,” adding he is “not persuaded” that the court needs to allow the reception of evidence to rule on the factual issues in the case which covered whether he applied for the amnesty and whether he admitted guilt.

The other judge handling the case of coup d’état against Trillanes took on a different route in dismissing the charges against the senator.

But it has been noted that Judge Andres Soriano of Makati RTC 148, despite the fact that the senator failed to produce the original amnesty application form, dismissed the charges against Trillanes which ruling raised a lot of eyebrows.

It certainly seemed like a strange ruling, considering that there was no existence at all of any one copy and narrative of the amnesty application form and affidavit detailing the offense by the senator and his part in it.

Even stranger is the fact that the senator failed to produce his copy of the amnesty application, nor for that matter, could he produce the affidavit that he claimed to have provided the government officials.

It stands to reason that if Trillanes had a filed application for amnesty form, he would have a copy of it, or, at the very least, a photocopy of it. As for the affidavit, Trillanes also should have his copy and he lost it, he can always get it from the Notary Public that by law, should keep all files signed.

But what was rejected by Judge Alameda, was allowed by Judge Soriano who junked the government’s appeal and held that Trillanes applied for amnesty and admitted guilt even in the absence of evidence from the accused and his camp.

At the same time, however, Soriano held that the Duterte proclamation voiding the Trillanes amnesty grant from then President Noynoy Aquino, precisely because of the missing application form, which strangely no government department or bureau had a single copy of the form, as well as the narrative or sworn affidavit of the crime and Trillanes’ role in it.

These are integral to the grant of his amnesty and also the reason President Duterte, in a presidential proclamation, revoked Trillanes’ claimed amnesty.

But the question has been asked: How can the judge state that the proclamation voiding Trillanes’ amnesty is constitutional, but, at the same time, rejected reopening the case against Trillanes who failed to present any evidence to clear him.

Soriano’s decision is no different from saying the presidential proclamation is void since he appeared to have rejected the same proclamation in dismissing the case against Trillanes.

Soriano seemed to have taken as gospel truth the testimonies of officials from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Department of National Defense and a journalist, presented by Trillanes as his “secondary evidence.”

This was dismissed earlier by Judge Alameda when presented before his court, saying they were all hearsay.

Alameda stressed in his decision rejecting Trillanes’ appeal on account of the senator’s inability to present the “official original copy duly stamp marked received or even a photocopy of the application form bars him from proving alleged contents thereof.”

This is in direct contrast to Soriano’s ruling who gave importance to secondary evidence that was junked by Alameda.

Trillanes is hardly off the hook as he can still be jailed for rebellion.

And frankly, Trillanes deserves a lifetime in jail.