[ad_1]
MANILA, Philippines – When President Rodrigo Duterte proclaimed the cancellation of the amnesty granted to the spokesman, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, prosecutors asked the local courts to hold the senator responsible for the charges that these Courts had already rejected in 2011.
They argued that although the courts did not err in filing the case when former President Benigno Aquino III had amnestied Trillanes and other mutineers by Through Proclamation 75, the senator's business should be reinstated since the amnesty was void from the beginning.
Divisions 148 and 150 of the Makati Regional Court of First Instance received the pleadings of the Government the same week as Duterte Proclamation 572. The Supreme Court then ordered the two courts to rule on the factual issues surrounding Proclamation 572.
Several pleadings and hearings later, the two Makati courts came to different decisions.
Judge Elmo Alameda, chairman of branch 150 of the Makati RTC, granted the government's request for a warrant – essentially reopening the truce case against Trillanes – and declared on 25 September that the court had established the factual basis of proclamation 572.
Almost a month later Judge Andres Soriano of RTC Makati branch 148 denied the petition. He stated that, although the court did not declare the 572 Proclamation unconstitutional, it lacked a factual basis: Trillanes sought an amnesty and acknowledged his guilt.
Best proof
Makati RTC Branch 150: When Alameda held a hearing on the petition on September 14, he asked everyone for a copy of the application form completed by Trillanes. This, he said, is the best evidence in this case.
Attorney Reynaldo Robles, representing Trillanes, admitted in open court that he could not find a copy of the form.
In subsequent pleadings, Robles stated that he discovered that only one copy of the amnesty application form had been submitted. This copy had been submitted to the Department of National Defense Committee established to process amnesty requests.
In his decision, Alameda pointed out: "Obviously, he did not submit the original, a duplicate or even a photocopy showing that he had personally completed and filed with the Board of Directors. amnesty its official form of application for amnesty duly recognized and stamped. received by said office. "
Alameda again raised the issue of the Trillanes application form when it held a hearing on October 11 on the Senator's reconsideration request. He said that if Trillanes had submitted the completed application form, "it would have ended the hearing".
Makati RTC Branch 148: Judge Soriano at two hearings – September 13 and October 5 – did not ask for the application form.
Initially, Soriano allowed both sides to submit additional conclusions to explain their arguments. Even after his reception, the judge decided to convene another hearing to allow both sides to present their evidence.
At this hearing, both sides presented their witnesses: officials from the Armed Forces of the Philippines and DND, as well as a journalist.
More than two weeks later, Soriano made his decision in which he asked the following question: "Is there any evidence, other than the application form, to establish that Trillanes filed his request for amnesty? "
"The case law states that when the problem is the existence and proper performance of a document, and not its content, the rule of best evidence can not be invoked and the court does not have to deal with the requirement for the admissibility of a secondary evidence, "said Soriano. This echoed a point advanced by Robles.
"It is sufficient that the party presenting the secondary evidence establish the existence and proper execution of the document by a preponderance of evidence, and the Court may then admit secondary evidence without giving an account of the original," reads in Soriano stop.
Factual basis of proclamation 572
Makati RTC Branch 150: Unlike Soriano, Alameda ruled – and welcomed – the government's plea for a procedural warrant submitted by both sides. Affidavits, certifications and a report were among the appendices to the pleadings submitted to the court.
Alameda stated that Trillanes had not applied for amnesty under Proclamation 75, based on Lieutenant-Colonel Thea Joan Andrade's certification that "there is no copy of his name. [Trillanes’] request for amnesty in the archives. "
Regarding the fact that Trillanes acknowledged his guilt, Alameda ruled in favor of a GMA News Online article in which the senator was quoted as saying: "I want to point out that we did not admit our accusation of" coup d'etat ". "state" or anything of yesteryear is because we believe that hindi and narratapat are responsible for the charges we bring (we think that should not have been ours). "
The court stated that Trillanes made this statement and that he also did not produce a copy of the application form in which he allegedly signed an admission of guilt.
"Apparently, the statements and statements made by Senator Trillanes in his interview with GMA News and published under the title" Trillanes asks for an amnesty admits that "late-breaking information" is contradictory and irreconcilable with his categorical stance that he had asked for amnesty and confessed his guilt, Alameda held.
These, the judge said, proved that the 572 proclamation had a factual foundation.
Trillanes' camp asks Alameda to reconsider his decision and hold a testimonial hearing to "clean up" the case. Alameda still has to decide on their motion.
Makati RTC Branch 148: Soriano had a different appreciation of the evidence presented to him.
Soriano held a separate hearing on October 5, the court "having ruled that it was prudent and timely to settle the case" at the hearing to obtain evidence.
The hearing lasted six hours and both sides had time to cross-examine nine witnesses in total.
Soriano, in its decision, took into account the testimony of the last hearing.
He pointed out that Colonel Josefa Berbigal – head of the secretariat of the DND Ad Hoc Committee – and former Defense Director Honorio Azcueta had testified that they had handled Trillanes' request for amnesty.
Soriano noted that, based on Berbigal's and Azcueta's respective statements, there was no duplicate copy of the application form.
"However, the original form can no longer be presented to the Court, without bad faith on the part of Trillanes, because it would have been lost in the custody of public officials from whom it should be found," reads in the judgment .
He added: "The non-submission here does not indicate that he did not apply because it is the DND ad hoc committee that was charged with receiving and dealing with requests and to determine whether the applicants had requested the amnesty. "
Prosecutors briefed Mark Merueñas, who testified that he had a record of the statement cited by Trillanes in his article.
The Court stated, however, that Trillanes 'statement "should have been subject to review by the DND Special Amnesty Committee when it processed and deliberated Trillanes' amnesty application."
The Court noted that no objections had been raised to the DND Special Amnesty Committee, the Secretary of National Defense and even the President's Office.
"The question can not be resurrected here," reads the judgment.
Soriano also noted that Merueñas also claimed to have personally witnessed the filing of its application by Trillanes.
Case reopened
Makati RTC Branch 150: Trillanes was facing a charge of rebellion in front of the Alameda sala, for his involvement in the 2007 siege on the Manila Peninsula.
Citing the amnesty granted by Aquino, Alameda filed the case on September 7, 2011.
When Alameda accepted the government's plea against Trillanes on September 25, he had reopened the case.
He stated that the 2011 decision was void because it implied "the discovery of Senator Trillanes' non-filing of his amnesty request containing an admission of his guilt".
He noted that the prosecution had not yet presented its evidence on the rebellion case when it was filed in 2011.
Makati RTC Branch 148: Soriano, however, invoked the doctrine of immutability in the case of the coup against Trillanes.
He pointed out that documents showed that the case had long been filed under Proclamation 75 – which he had previously noted had not, in fact, been quashed by Proclamation 572. "The reference, it seems, has become final and binding ". Lily.
"The doctrine is well established that a final and binding judgment will be immutable," he added.
Soriano stressed: "Given its findings, both on the legality of Proclamation 572 and on its factual basis, the Court sees no reason to change the doctrine of the immutability of a final and binding judgment. . "
& # 39; & # 39; Legal malfeasance: battle at the highest court
Since two different courts have rendered different decisions based essentially on the same facts, the legal battle will eventually lead to a higher court.
"This is the evil that we feared. Two joint tribunals have reached different conclusions on essentially the same set of facts, "said Abdiel Dan Fajardo, president of the Philippine Integrated Bar.
The IBP official stated that both parties could still appeal Soriano's decision: Trillanes could appeal the conclusion of Makati branch RTC 148 that the 572 proclamation was constitutional, while the MJ could seek to overturn the court's findings of fact.
But with the seemingly contradictory conclusions of both courts, the wisdom of a higher court may be necessary to clear the matter up.
"These decisions will eventually have to be evaluated by the Supreme Court. The High Court will be the final arbiter once conflicting findings are ripe for an examination, "Fajardo said.
Trillanes had previously been addressed to the CS to challenge the constitutionality of the 572 proclamation. He did not get the immediate relief of a temporary restraining order, his petition is still hanging in front of the high court.
Theodore Te, a former SC spokesperson and law professor, told Fajardo, "Ideally, these two decisions will make their way into the judicial hierarchy: CA and then most likely SC."
In the "first edition" of the ANC, Te Te said to you, "I guess with respect to SC's petition, it's a game waiting now." How can the two branches not only settle their differences, coordinate the courts, we can not dismiss the other, but how these two cases … go back the judicial chain. "
After all, Soriano himself said, "The law is dynamic. Jurisprudence is its cornerstone. Subsequent jurisprudence may open new horizons in which exceptions to the immutability of a final and enforceable judgment may arise. "
LILY: Menardo Guevarra, DOJ leader: "It's not the end"
[ad_2]
Source link
