by Ashzel Hachero
Malaya
A Makati court hearing the coup d’etat case of the Magdalo soldiers on Thursdya junked the bid of the group’s leader, detained Senator Antonio Trillanes IV to attend the opening session of the 15th Congress on Monday, July 26.
Update: Detained Senator Antonio Trillanes IV asked Judge Oscar Pimentel of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 148 to reconsider his reconsider its decision prohibiting him from attending the opening of the Senate session on July 26.
“It will just be fore five hours,” Trillanes’ lawyer Reynaldo Robles said.
Robles argued that the SC ruling cited by the RTC was “not applicable” in the request for leave-from-detention. “(The SC ruling denied an) omnibus motion, which is a motion (for Trillanes to) attend Senate sessions and committee hearings,” he told GMANews.TV.
In a four page ruling, Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 148 Judge Oscar Pimentel Sr. sided with the prosecution’s arguments that Trillanes latest bid to leave his detention place to attend Senate sessions has no merit and this was even affirmed by the Supreme Court (SC).
“After due considerations of the pleadings and arguments filed by both parties, the Court is convinced to deny the Motion for leave filed by Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV,” Pimentel said in his ruling dated July 15 but which was only released late Thursday afternoon.
“As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, the issue on whether Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV could be allowed to attend Senate sessions while being a detention prisoner has already been resolved with finality in the case of Antonio F. Trillanes IV vs. Honorable Oscar B. Pimentel Sr. et.al., G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008 where the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of this Court denying the Omnibus Motion of accused-movant Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV,” the court’s ruling added.
In that Omnibus Motion, the neophyte lawmaker asked the court’s nod to attend all official functions of the Senate (whether at the Senate or elsewhere) particularly when the Senate is in session, and to attend the regular and plenary sessions, committee hearings and meetings, consultations, investigations and hearings in aid of legislation, caucuses and staff meetings.
Pimentel even quoted verbatim the SC ruling on Trillanes earlier petition which stated that “”The distinctions cited by petitioner were not elemental in the pronouncement in Jalosjos that election to Congress is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are at substantial distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and rest acted in liberty of movement.”
Pimentel also debunked Trillanes’ claim that he should be allowed to attend senate session considering the interest of those who voted for him in the 2007 mid-term election adding that those who voted for him were aware of the nature of the case and his predicament.
“Petitioner’s electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the voters elected him to the Senate, “they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action and with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison,” the court further said.
The court likewise said it had granted Trillanes’ past request for temporary leave such as when he registered as a voter in December 2006, cast his vote in the May 14, 2007 election and when he take his oath on June 29, 2007 adding that the latter “largely banks on these prior grants to him and insists on unending concessions and blanket authorizations.”
Pimentel said if he granted Trillanes latest request, he may be accused of “disobedience” of the SC order and “ignorance of jurisprudence.”
“In view of the foregoing, the Court cannot grant the instant Motion of accused Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV for to do so would be a blatant violation and disregard of the aforementioned jurisprudential ruling of the Supreme Court. The Presiding Judge of this Court may even be cited for Disobedience or Ignorance of jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court if the motion of herein accused is granted. It would be an act of indirect contempt and an absurd situation to allow the accused to attend the opening of the Senate session as the said issue has already been decided upon by the Supreme Court with finality,” Pimentel said.
“Wherefore, premises considered, the Motion for leave of Court to attend the opening session of the Philippine Senate on July 26, 2010, filed by Accused-movant Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV and the consequent request of the latter to take that opportunity to have lunch with his colleagues at the Senate Lounge and meet his staff at his office, during the senate session within the premises of the Philippine Sneate is hereby denied for lack of Merit,” Pimentel concluded in his ruling.
Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales said in the 2008 decision that “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.”
She added, “The Petitioner’s electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the voters elected him to the Senate, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action and with the knowledge that he could only achieve such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison.”
Then Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., expressed dismay on the SC decision saying “ Trillanes was voted into office by about 11 million Filipinos and that he should be entitled to presumption of innocence as a person accused of a political offense before conviction.”
Trillanes’ counsel, Reynaldo Robles said he could not issue a statement as he has yet to receive a copy of the court’s ruling.
“We have yet to receive a copy of the ruling. But if it is true that the court has junked our motion, it would be a bad news,” Robles said when reached for comment while attending an anti-human trafficking forum in Pasay city.
Robles earlier said the participation of his client in the senate session is “particularly crucial in the light of the fact that only 21 out of the twenty-four 24 duly elected Senators will most probably be present if he will not be able attend and/or participate in the said opening session.
Only 21 out of 24 senators might be present in the opening session as there is a vacancy created by the election of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III as the country’s president, while Sen. Panfilo Lacson remains in hiding.
Trillanes has already posted bail last week before the Makati RTC Branch 150 which is hearing his rebellion case in connection with the 2007 Manila Peninsula Hotel stand-off.
Pimentel’s court on the other hand is hearing the coup d”etat charges against Trillanes and the other Magdalo officers in connection with the short-lived 2003 Oakwood mutiny.
Several personalities and sectors have urged the court to allow Trillanes to leave detention even for one day to attend the opening sessions.
Former president Joseph Estrada and Vice President Jejomar Binay called on Pimentel to allow Trillanes to attend next week’s session.
Binay also appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) not to impose their opposition on Trillanes’ temporary release.
Estrada for his part said Trillanes continued detention is a waste of taxpayer’s money.
At the same time, the former chief executive said he believes that the ground that the SC had previously given denying Trillanes his request to participate in Senate sessions, which was risk of flight, is not present in this case, noting that the latter needs only a few hours of the day to attend Senate sessions.
“He can be brought to the Senate to attend session for a few hours and then brought back to where he is being detained. He can even be brought to the Senate under supervision or security. This will not prevent the Courts from hearing his case. Why the big fuss?” Estrada said.
He added that Trillanes continued detention meant that taxpayers’ money was being wasted by not allowing him to attend and participate in Senate deliberations.
The Department of Justice is reviewing the the Trillanes case upon orders of President Aquino who said the imprisonment of the former Navy captain is “unjust.”
Aquino said his understanding is that the July 2003 Oakwood incident do not meet the elements of a coup.
But, has Trillanes been convicted? If so, technically, he is presumed innocent (I hate to take this sort of legal tack, but heck, what else does one do?), so what on earth are they mumbo-jumboing about in the judiciary?
Also, I don’t agree when they say that a person who has not been convicted yet and sentenced to prison term but is in detention cannot do his profession or work. What if he is a writer by profession, eg., Jeffrey Archer? Are they telling us that the man in detention should stop writing altogether? What if the man is a web programmer by profession? Will that detained web programmer be disallowed to receive fees for his work while in detention?
What inanity is that legal mumbo-jumboing again?
C’mon Supreme Court! You plagiarists should be detained!
No,YB. He has not been convicted.
And his request was just to attend the opening of the 15th Senate. After the opening he would go back to his detention cell. This is just to be able to fulfill his legislative duties.
He was not asking to be released or to be acquitted.
This simply shows that the Arroyo mafia in the DOJ is still intact. Despite President Aquino’s statement on Trillanes coup case, they opposed his motion for reconsideration to be allowed to attend Senate opening.
The long tentacles of influence of gloria’s greed and injustice are still very much felt around even the woman who used to call herself president is no longer in nalakanyang. Proof is Carpio-Morales ruling denying Sonny Trillanes a temporary liberty in order to perform his lagislative duties as a duly elected senator.
Should Sonny Trillanes happened to be an Arroyo, I’ll bet the dick and balls of Mikey Arroyo, no double thinking, justices of the Korteng Sobrena will vote unanimously in favor of the petition.
May aasahan kasi silang bayad, eh.
Ooops, sorry about that: should read “But, has Trillanes been convicted? If NOT, technically, he is presumed innocent…”
Ellen,
7 years of prison detention without any trial ending conclusively, much less without conviction in sight is a violation of the man’s human rights. As a former military, his military human rights are being trampled upon.
I am not a lawyer but have access to military lawyers where I sit and those I have asked say this: Trillanes continuing incarceration without proper trial nor conclusion to trial smacks of human rights violation. They say that for whatever reason, even the most extreme, eg., accused/defence is creating procedural problems so trial can’t proceed, it is governmment prosecutors’s responsibility to see to it that trial is given a timeline. If they can’t do it, the man should be set free.
This government, if it means what it says, must either ask DoJ to drop case immediately and free officer or to pursue case with a timeline. But, this continuing violation of the detained former military officer’s human rights is in itself a government crime.
If Trillanes were in Europe, he could easily take his case to European Courts or to the International Court of Human Rights.
He could accuse govt of human rights violation — if he wins, he could be paid damages for 7 years of incarceration.
judge oscar pimentel is committing a mortal sin and grave injustice not only to trillianes, but also to the 11 million filipinos who voted for sen trillianes, about time trillianes change his incompetent lawyer
saan ang demokrasya kung ang isang senador na halal ng bayan ay nasa kulungan
Seven long years deliberately slow trial is justice delayed is often justice denied. May araw ka rin Gloria Arroyo sa kulungan.
So now you know why I am not a fan of Carpio-Morales. This case, and the one-impeahcment-per-year-only decision are some of her ponencias.
I am not a fan of Trillanes either. I only learned of Oakwood in this blog, four years after the incident. But the issue is the injustice of a trumped up charge to deny bail. Whether it is done to that posturing revolutionary (Joma Sison), or to Trillanes, the prosecutorial misdeed of elevating a charge to achieve an unjust incarceration is violative of the lawyer’s and government employee’s oath to do justice to every man.
In fariness to Trillanes, his record proves that he deserves the trust reposed on him by the electorate.
As I posted earlier, the years in prison are longer than the imposable penalty. So he could have moved for freedom, pending the decision, which will then be a mere formality. In fact, considering the prejudice worked on him by the prosecutorial misconduct to deny him bail, he could move for a dismissal with prejudice.
The motion for bail, only for the opening, lends credence to the accusation of the other camp that he merely wants to participate in the election of the Senate President. Whether that is for Enrile, Pangilinan or Villar, is immaterial. I would have gone for full freedom instead of bail, to evade this suspicion.
Sidebar – Oscar Pimentel is a cousin of Angara.
Sidebar – Oscar Pimentel is a cousin of Angara. – SnV
And Angara is a rabid ally of gloria.
And gloria is the accuser of Sonny Trillanes.
Kawing kawing at dugtong dugtong din ang mga dahilan kung bakit ayaw nilang makalabas si Trillanes.
A simple solution is for Ninoy to grant amnesty. He is the president si Erap nga isang press conference lang ng Press secretary (Bunyi) laya na. Grant Amnesty laya na sila then bahala na maghabol ang kontra sa SC at least tapos na ang problema.
Dapat yata si Erap na lang nanalo tapos na ang problema ni Trillanes remember talo ni Erap si Noynoy sa absentee voting ng mga sundalo. Maniwala kayo people will accept it walang kontra diyan except Miriam, Angara at Biazon.
Sidebar – Oscar Pimentel is a cousin of Angara.- SNV
Oh, that’s interesting.
Sidebar ulit:
Pinay (three-fourths Pinay) is nominated CJ of California Supreme Court. Anak siya ng plantation worker in Hawaii.
https://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/JanFeb2005/coverStory.html
Sorry. Here is the news item.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/cant072210.htm
Tani Cantil-Sakauye a daughter of one-time farmworkers and also a trained blackjack dealer. A job that helped her pay way to law school.
In G.R. No. 89591-96 dated January 24, 2000, SC Associate Justice Pardo wrote:
J. Carpio-Morales quoted this and J. Pimentel used it in his decision.
In G.R. No. 132875-76 dated February 3, 2000, SC Associate Justice Ynares-Santiago wrote:
J. Carpio-Morales applied this in her decision.
As to the presumption of innocence, Senator Trillanes was presumed innocent when he was arrested and is still presumed innocent up to the present. He is merely detained according to the dictates of law.
Even Cong. Jalosjos, already convicted of rape in the lower court and while in preventive detention, was presumed innocent during the pendency of his appeal. Only until the SC rendered final conviction was the presumption of innocence extinguished.
—–
(3) Rule 113, Sections 2, 3, 1985, Rules on Criminal Procedure.
(4) Rule 114, Section 1, 1985, Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Grabe pa rin talaga ang mga galamay ni pandak! They are still probably expecting that the midget will again be a prime minister one day and they still want to be on her good graces one day. O baka naman parte ng promotion nila sa kani-kanilang pwesto eh yung Trillianes factor. Kailangang hindi nila palabasin si Trillanes at hanggang ngayon eh iniipit pa rin nila si Trillianes.
Hindi bale Sonny, makakalabas ka pa rin. It is just a matter of time. Hindi ka nga lang makakaboto ng Senate President na gusto mo. Konting tiis na lang.
that guy should be investigated
Please bear in mind that Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, though voted by 11 million Filipinos, is senator not only of the 11 million, but of the whole 90 Million Pinoys.
His absence makes the senate presidency a three-cornered fight with each candidate backed by 7 senators each from the 21 who will be present on Monday. Trillanes could have tilted the balance in favor of Pangilinan, I assume, but now that Pangilinan’s fate is doomed, the camps of Enrile and Villar will start raiding the remnants of Kiko’s support base. Angara, meantime, is just lurking in the sidelines waiting for the opportune time to devour the next guy who knocks on his door, his own seven moral dwarfs just about ready to begin the bloody orgy in the senate.
…presumed innocent during the pendency of his appeal. Only until the SC rendered final conviction was the presumption of innocence extinguished.
Totoo ba yan, baycas? It is very clear in the words of the law, “…Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt…”. I guess this is a universal principle of law which applies to all, so this:
Found here .
In the article of Winnie Monsod found here,
http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=14551
she adverts to the report of a Fact-Finding Commission, part of which states that
Honasan, howevr, was excluded from the charge, shortly before arraignment, on the strength of a reinvestigation by RaulGon.
Now there is sufficient precedent in the US for a dismissal based on equal protection grounds, when there is selective prosecution. There certainly is selectivity here.
There is also basis for a dismissal based on “vindictive prosecution”. The fact that the crime is merely sedition, as I posted earlier, but the charge was for a coup to elevate the charge to a non-bailable one, can certainly be argued as being vindictive.
I will post the precedents later.
There is, therefore, precedent, based on the earlier posts, to dismiss, because the charge worked a prejudice to the accused.
Uy. Di ba pinatawad ang iba, on a mere apology? So much for sending the wrong signal.
Winnie Monsod is not credible in matters pertaining to Trillanes. She and her husband is elitist; always a defender of their class.
Now, Monsod is for Noynoy Aquino. In 2003, she was Gloria Arroyo’s defender. Did you see the ABS-CBN showing here dancing with Gloria Arroyo? She even defended Arroyo in the Hello Garci tapes controversy. So what if she cheated, she said. She really won, she said.
She conveniently forgot that election cheating is a crime.
To me, it was against Gloria Arroyo,the fake president that Trillanes and company dared stand up against. They should be commended, not punished.
Arroyo was a power grabber and a cheat. Standing up against her is a virtue, not a liability.
I did not quote Winnie Monsod for the legal arguments. They are flawed.
I only needed to point to her article for the info it provided – that Gringo indeed was the mastermind, and he was not charged. Had I had the Fact-Finding report itself, I would have quoted it, not Monsod.
The arguments are flawed because Monsod uses the Fact-Finding Report to point out that Trillanes admitted to the plan to employ violence. But the actuality is different, as confirmed by henry90 here, and Ellen. The explosives were purposely not rigged, so the physical evidence shows there was no intent to resort to violence. At best, the threat of violence was a bluff. Bluffing about violence is not an element of the crime of coup. Actual violence is.
Like Miriam and other “legal luminaries”, the critics skirt around the issue raised by the President. The physical targets of a coup are enumerated. When the law enumerates, it limits its effects to those enumerated. Since hotel is not enumerated, an essential element of the offense is missing. And it is settled law that the prosecution must not only prove every element of the offense, it must so state in the information (charge).
The enumeration is not without purpose. As I said earlier, if one attacks a church or mosque, that would not be a coup, because it is not the seat of power, nor a building from which government power emanates (like Camp Crame).
Here is the law again:
The oppositors make much capital of the phrase emphasized above, where it says “directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines” to state that the elements of a coup have been met.
But the phrase here, I submit, refers to physical direction, not motive. The reason for that is because in the same sentence, after, the word “or”, it enumerates military camp, installation, etc. Now the word “direct” cannot have two significations in the same sentence – motive with respect to the President, and physical direction with respect to military camps. So the phrase attack directed at… can only mean a physical attack directed at a target. In other words, the President should have been physically assaulted, or a military camp was physically attacked – bombs, grenades, etc. Ewan ko lang kung puwedeng bomba ni Malabanan. Is that olfactory violence?
So talagang kulang yung element na binanggit ng Pangulo.
Score one for the non-lawyer President, against the “legal luminary” Miriam. More like legal hallucinary to me.
Thanks for the explanation,saxnviolins. I’m sorry. basta Monsod kasi turnoff ako.
I find her a hypocrite.
Does presumption of innocence continue during the pendency of appeal of conviction beyond reasonable doubt by the lower court?
Please trust me, T.I.A. (the moniker I came to know you with back in PCIJ days), my statement that the presumption of innocence is only extinguished until final conviction is TRUE.
I understand very well your point of view. In fact, I already argued on your side in August 2007 in a Court of Public Opinion via mlq3’s blog:
http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=quezon+ph+presumption+of+innocence+jaxius+baycas&btnG=Google+Search
Not only was presumption of innocence being debated on then but the discussion also pertains to Sen. Trillanes. It’s quite amusing (and very informative!) to read again the points being raised during that time – “sound” arguments brought up by lawyers (including Sec. Lacierda) and non-lawyers (such as I am) alike.
Well, we (the opposing quarters) rested our case by not pursuing the matter and stopped commenting further…and probably just agreed to disagree.
Little did I know that in March of last year, the Presumption of Innocence (POI) Debate would once again crop up. Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith’s case was the backdrop. This time the Court of Public Opinion was at Filipino Voices but “starred” by lawyers and non-lawyers again:
http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=presumption+of+innocence+mangubat+djb&btnG=Google+Search
The whole premise that the POI continues even on appeal lies on SC Associate Justices Nachura and Carpio-Morales’ separate decisions in January and June 2008, respectively. Obviously, the initial POI Debate in 2007 lingers on because the answer will come months later.
However, I’m a bit puzzled because back in 2007 the Mangubat case didn’t prop up in my Google search. In reality, as I had found out belatedly, the answer was in the year 1986 in Mangubat vs Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-60613-20:
Philippine jurisprudential evidence made me lose my case (simply because my early assertion – the same as your view at present – sad to say, was baseless!).
Does presumption of innocence continue during the pendency of appeal of conviction beyond reasonable doubt by the lower court?
Please trust me, T.I.A. (the moniker I came to know you with back in PCIJ days), my statement that the presumption of innocence is only extinguished until final conviction is TRUE.
I understand very well your point of view. In fact, I already argued on your side in August 2007 in a Court of Public Opinion via mlq3’s blog:
Google search: quezon+ph+presumption+of+innocence+jaxius+baycas
Not only was presumption of innocence being debated on then but the discussion also pertains to Sen. Trillanes. It’s quite amusing (and very informative!) to read again the points being raised during that time – “sound” arguments brought up by lawyers (including Sec. Lacierda) and non-lawyers (such as I am) alike.
Well, we (the opposing quarters) rested our case by not pursuing the matter and stopped commenting further…and probably just agreed to disagree.
Little did I know that in March of last year, the Presumption of Innocence (POI) Debate would once again crop up. Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith’s case was the backdrop. This time the Court of Public Opinion was at Filipino Voices but “starred” by lawyers and non-lawyers again:
Google search: presumption+of+innocence+mangubat+djb
The whole premise that the POI continues even on appeal lies on SC Associate Justices Nachura and Carpio-Morales’ separate decisions in January and June 2008, respectively. Obviously, the initial POI Debate in 2007 lingers on because the answer will come months later.
However, I’m a bit puzzled because back in 2007 the Mangubat case didn’t prop up in my Google search. In reality, as I had found out belatedly, the answer was in the year 1986 in Mangubat vs Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-60613-20:
Philippine jurisprudential evidence made me lose my case (simply because my early assertion – the same as your view at present – sad to say, was baseless!).
To understand POI better is to understand it as it emanates from the maxim: “It is better for one hundred criminals to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted.”
I await (with bated breath?) the fate of Sen. Trillanes.
baycas:
The presumption of innocence and denial of bail are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Constitution allows it. The justification is that bail is denied in order to ensure that the person accused of a capital offense will not run away.
That was the reason advanced by Carpio-Morales, in upholding Pimentel’s denial of bail – that Trillanes is a flight risk.
In the US, denial of bail is the exception, not the rule.
Under the Bail Reform Act, bail will only be denied if the court finds that there is no condition or combination of conditions that would ensure the appearance of the accused. The conditions could be electronic monitoring (electronic collar worn by accused), frequent reporting, surrender of the passport or other condition.
Pimentel could have ordered that Trillanes report back to the detention center after discharging his duties in the Senate. True, there is the jurisprudence that one cannot practice one’s profession or function as a public official while under preventive detention. But that is actually a denial of a right, and only tangentially related to preventive detention; because you can be prevented from flight, while discharging your legislative functions. How? Hatid sundo sa Senado, in the same way na may hatid sundo to the court for trial.
What happened to Puno? He styles himself as a liberal, but he did not even dissent. He said that government may err, but the sovereign people will not. He said that in the case involving JDV’s cha-cha (napaka-wrong timing naman). He should have applied the same principle in the case of Trillanes. Pinatawad na ng taumbayan, ayaw pang magpatawad ang mga lingkod lamang ng taumbayan. Para yang atheist, trying to appear more Catholic than the Pope.
#25 rosamarta
Agree with you.
Remember also she and GMA were vehemently pushing for the “extradition” kuno to Spain of the Spanish-Cebuano rapist-murderer of the Chong sisters. Of course, they succeeded in the end.
SNV,
Thanks very much for the comment.
I wouldn’t want to belabor myself to once again dissect the matter on the Presumption of Innocence (and even Bail, for that matter). Suffice to say that I fully subscribe to the contentions of lawyer Jaxius (The Quixotic Kibitzer) and some assertions by DJB (Rizalist) over at the sites that are linked when googling for:
quezon+ph+presumption+of+innocence+jaxius+baycas
and
presumption+of+innocence+mangubat+djb
So mukhang tama ang hinala ng kabilang panig. Ibig lang ni Trillanes bumoto.
http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=14715
Nawalan tuloy ako ng ganang magpatuloy sa research.
Yang Senate Presidency, fluid naman yan, ang can change anytime. Kung lumaya si Trillanes ng permanente, he would be able to participate fully. Pero tila ang priority ay itong Senate Presidency elections before the SONA, and not the main case.
In the words of the Pig, from the research, I will “back off”.
makati rtc judge pimentel alis dyan……..
si Paco Larranaga na rapist at murderer ng CHiong sisters sa Cebu pinakawalan at pinapunta sa Spain, ang murderer ni Hultman na si Teehankee Jr pinakawalan din, si Trillianes wala namang ni rape o pinatay, pitong taon nang nakakulong nanalong senador, may twala sa kanya mamamayan pero ayaw pakawalan, baluktot talaga ang hustisya!
DoJ begins review of Trillanes’ coup d’etat charges
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/18/10/doj-begins-review-trillanes-coup-detat-charges
This is a good development.
Sana, tuloy tuloy na ito.
Sana, justice would be served fairly and in accordance to what Sen Trillanes and his companions deserve and government prosecutors accept their incompetence and being puppets of the never elected woman who used to hallucinated herself as president.
plis, pakibasa ng walang D ‘yung hallucinate.
Nahahalusineyt na rin ako.
Who’s afraid of Antonio Trillanes? He’s just one man…
Kaya nga yung last sentence ng ruling sa trial court laging merong “The court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt”… Hence the POI ends there. No new proofs can be presented to the Supreme Court. It is on appeal only to prove your point that the trial court erred in its decision by technical means (procedures, misreading of statutes, etc), not on the PROOFS. This time, the burden of proof (which attended the errant decision) shifts to the defense. Look, in what I quoted from Canadian SC jurisprudence, it is clear that the status quo likewise shifts from liberty upon a guilty decision by the trial court to incarceration, hence a bail in the early part was for preventing detention while on trial and the latter, for preventing of serving the sentence while on appeal, which is the new status quo.
If that principle is wrong as I understand it, I will never be a good lawyer. I will stick to Math which results are the same and predictable and whose LAWS are neither incontrovertible nor malleable.
TT:
Totoo yan. Mayroon ding bail pending appeal sa US. Kaya nga the trial court must find that no condition or combination of conditions will ensure, the safety of the community (in the case of violent criminals like the Mafia), or will ensure the appearance of the accused (in the case of one who is a flight risk).
Walang finding kay Trillanes regarding conditions that will ensure his appearance. There is only the gratuitous declaration that he is a flight risk. Paanong naging flight risk ang gustong magtrabaho sa Senado. At paanong naging flight risk ang hindi tumakbo sa Manila Pen, bagkus humarap pa sa media?
Malinaw ang batas, ang hindi malinaw ay ang pagpapatupad.
Ayon din ako sa sinabi mo, about the natural sciences. Hindi mo masusuhulan o malalabag ang law of gravity. Kapag tumalon ka, bagsak ka.
Actually, sax, wala akong problema sa bail on appeal. Ang hindi ko malunok, yung convicted na beyond reasonable doubt, meron pa raw presumption of innocence.
Ang alam ko, majority ng appeals ang tenor e gross ignorance of the law ng trial judge. Hindi na ina-assail ng defense yung evidence, kundi yung appreciation ng evidence which is clearly a judgement call. Yung judge na ang kalaban ng defense lawyer hindi na yung prosecutor. Ang kadalasang argumento ay yung applicability ng batas, o kung repealed or superseded na, yun pa ang ginamit na basehan nung judge. Kaya kung nung una, prosecutor ang nagpapatunay ng kasalanan ng akusado, dito sa appeal yung defense lawyers na ang nagpapatunay ng palpak na desisyon ng judge. Tama o mali?
Siyanga pala, dito kasi pag may appeal may panibagong pag-asa yung akusado na makapaglagay. Kaya siguro convict na gusto pang magpaturing na inosente.
A. It is unfortunate that I cannot force anyone to read through previous discussions on the POI topic. Anyway, just to give some highlights (uh-oh, there goes my limited time for my ongoing research…hehe), I’ll copy-paste some comments in an attempt to explain some points.
Two opposing views…
Lacierda:
Jaxius:
(Emphasis mine.)
B. In 2007, my original assertion was:
C. I must admit that my understanding (stated above) was just gathered from an online newspaper (The Hindu) article entitled “SC rejects ‘presumption of innocence’ until final appeal.” I only applied it to Philippine setting. Jaxius, as expected, seriously said that I am correct. However, he quickly added, “…but you must transfer to India.”
Well, as I have learned after a diligent course of deliberations (one in 2007 and another one last year), I was incorrect in my application of an Indian practice of law. Jaxius stated:
D. And as it turned out, my 180-degree turn is concluded in my comment:
Just to reiterate:
Presumption of innocence – continued
Conviction – NOT YET FINAL AND EXECUTORY
Sentence – stayed (during pendency of appeal)
Appellant – confined
Outcome of trial – being reviewed