How 2 Makati courts ruled on Trillanes amnesty case

The Duterte administration has won once and lost once in its bid to have Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, one of its staunchest critics, re-arrested for criminal cases dismissed seven years ago.

The government succeeded when one Makati judge revived the rebellion charges against Trillanes, but failed when another refused to reopen a long-junked coup d'etat case.

Two co-equal courts ruling differently on the basis of "essentially" the same set of facts reveals the "mischief" that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines feared would stem from the Trillanes amnesty issue, its president Abdiel Dan Fajardo believes.

But Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra disagrees, saying rulings depend on the courts' "appreciation or misappreciation" of the same set of evidence.

"It happens all the time, as in decisions being reversed on appeal. There's nothing mischievous about that," he said.

But Fajardo and Guevarra both said the matter will eventually have to be resolved by a superior court.

"The High Court will be the final arbiter once the conflicting findings become ripe for review," Fajardo said.

The Supreme Court is already saddled with a petition questioning the very constitutionality of the issuance of Proclamation No, 572, President Rodrigo Duterte's proclamation that revoked Trillanes' amnesty.

The justices immediately denied Trillanes’ request for a temporary restraining order, then referred the resolution of the factual issues to the trial courts.

Here is a breakdown of how Judges Elmo Alameda and Andres Soriano of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branches 150 and 148, respectively, ruled on the issues referred to them by the High Court.

What are the factual issues?

There are the two factual issues: did Trillanes apply for amnesty, and did he admit his guilt for crimes in connection with the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege?

The government accuses him of failing to meet these "minimum requirements," because his amnesty application papers are allegedly missing from official records, and because a news article reported him uttering statements that are allegedly inconsistent with his claim of admitting guilt.

Backed with eyewitnesses, the senator countered that he complied with these requisites and was consequently amnestied by the Aquino administration in 2011.

The Supreme Court referred these issues, along with the question on the "legality" of Proclamation No. 572, to the Makati RTCs, saying only the trial courts and in some cases the Court of Appeals, are triers of facts.

On application for amnesty

Ruling first, Judge Alameda, in charge of the rebellion case, found that Trillanes did not apply for amnesty because the senator failed to show a copy of a personally accomplished, duly acknowledged official amnesty application form.

In the form's absence, Trillanes presented documents such as his certificate of amnesty; a report on amnesty applicants on January 5, 2011, the day he applied; affidavits of eyewitnesses who purportedly saw him apply and received and processed his application; and photographs and news reports on his application filing.

But since the existence of the official copy of the form -- the "primary evidence" -- "could not be established," Alamenda decided he "should not give credence and weight" to Trillanes' documents, which he found "substitutionary" and "barren of probative weight" to prove his compliance with the requirements.

On the other hand, Judge Soriano, in charge of the coup d'etat case, factored in witness testimonies from a hearing he had called specifically for the reception of evidence on the same factual issues.

Trillanes still failed to present his amnesty application form before Judge Soriano. Members of the Defense committee that processed such applications said there was only one copy of the form given to applicants.

It is unclear where the supposed photocopies of the form, used for committee deliberations, were kept after the proceedings.

However, that the application form can no longer be produced does not mean "bad faith" on the part of Trillanes, Soriano said, because the document was "apparently lost in the custody of the public officers to whom it should be found."

Soriano ultimately ruled that Trillanes, in fact, filed his amnesty application form, on the basis of the proof presented by Trillanes' counsel in the hearing -- eyewitnesses, photographs, and secondary evidence of his filing.

"The prosecution failed to rebut Trillanes' witnesses and evidences," Soriano said.

On admission of guilt

Meanwhile, the contested admission of guilt took the form of three checkboxes and a space for a printed name and signature in a section in the amnesty application form.

Apart from narrating the facts of their involvement, applicants had to tick off which of the three incidents they participated in: the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the 2006 Marines Stand-off, and the 2007 Peninsula Manila Hotel incident.

Below that is the following statement:

"I hereby acknowledge that my involvement/participation in the subject incident/s constituted a violation of the 1987 Constitution, criminal laws and the Articles of War. I hereby recant my previous statements that are contrary, if any, to this express admission of involvement/participation and guilt."

But because Trillanes cannot produce a copy of his application form to begin with, Judge Alameda ruled that "it can be safely stated" that the senator also failed to comply with the requirement for admission of guilt and recantation of inconsistent statements.

Alameda also cited a GMA News Online report presented by the prosecution, which he said reveals "statements and declarations" made by the senator that are "in conflict and irreconcilable with his adamant position that he applied for amnesty and admitted his guilt."

On the other hand, since Judge Soriano was already convinced Trillanes filed an application, he said that "it follows that [Trillanes] made an express admission of participation/involvement and guilt," as well as a recantation.

He cited witness testimonies which he found to have "substantiated" the purported admission, from the officer who administered the oath to Trillanes when he applied, the eyewitnesses to the oath-taking, and the former Defense official who affirmed that the applications were properly filled up.

Soriano mentioned the same GMA News Online report, where Trillanes was quoted as saying he was not admitting "to the charge of coup d'etat or anything," but said he cannot ascertain the statement's accuracy because the original recording was not presented in court.

Even assuming it was accurate, however, the matter should have been considered by the Defense committee when it processed Trillanes' application, or could have been raised as an opposition, he said.

But there was "apparently" no such opposition at any stage of the amnesty proceedings, he said. "The matter cannot now be resurrected herein.”

Moreover, he said Trillanes' statement was "not inconsistent" with the  purported admission of guilt because a specific admission to coup d'etat "does not appear to be required" by Proclamation No. 75, the amnesty-granting Aquino directive.

"The general admission he made as pre-printed in the application form is sufficient compliance with what is required in the Amnesty Proclamation and its implementing rules," Soriano said.

Almost eight years after the amnesty grant, Trillanes would once again insist on qualifying their guilt, reiterating in an interview on GMA News TV's News To Go on October 2, 2018 that he was not admitting guilt to the charges filed against them at the time.

"Kami naniniwala kami na hindi coup d'etat anf ginawa namin noong panahon na iyon kasi may elements ng crime of coup d'etat na hindi namin ginawa iyon," said in the television interview.

"Ni walang ni isang bala na naiputok. Walang namatay. Kami ay nag-prescon lang noong panahon na iyon," he added.

Asked what the nature of their crime was at the time if it was not coup d'etat, Trillanes said, "Iba ang definition ng crime na nagawa namin. Siguro baka alarm and scandal or trespassing or whatever. Mayroon kaming naviolate na batas. We admitted to that but not coup d'etat per se."

Trillanes said Aquino, as granting authority, has the prerogative what conditions to make before granting amnesty, saying these conditions did not include an admission to coup d'etat.

On arrest bid, legality of Proclamation No. 572

After resolving the factual issues, the two Makati judges then had to decide whether or not to entertain the Department of Justice's motion seeking Trillanes' arrest.

Finding factual and legal basis for the issuance of Proclamation No. 572, Judge Alameda found that his court still had jurisdiction over the rebellion case against Trillanes over the Manila Peninsula Siege.

Unless declared otherwise by the Supreme Court, the Duterte directive "is presumed to be valid and legal," he said.

He disregarded his own "void" order dismissing the rebellion case in September 2011, after Trillanes was amnestied, as a consequence of the revocation of the amnesty.

He cited the Supreme Court case of Guevarra vs. Sandiganbayan in saying that while he is aware of the rule on the finality of judgement, "the State, like the accused, is also entitled to due process of law."

He also said Trillanes was not in danger of double jeopardy by the reinstatement of the rebellion case because its dismissal was "void," and upon motion of the senator himself.

He ordered Trillanes' arrest but allowed him to post bail of P200,000 in late September.

On the other hand, Soriano said he found "no reason to disturb the doctrine of immutability of a final and executory judgment."

The coup d'etat case over the Oakwood Mutiny, like the rebellion case, was dismissed by another presiding judge of Branch 148 in 2011 pursuant to the amnesty grant to Trillanes.

When a court's decision becomes "final and executory," it "loses jurisdiction over the case," Soriano said. He denied due course to the DOJ bid for Trillanes' arrest. The government is expected to appeal the decision.

"Meanwhile, the law is vibrant. Jurisprudence is its lifeblood. Subsequent jurisprudence may forge new horizons in which exceptions to the immutability of a final and executory judgment may be born," he wrote.

However, even if he contradicted the factual basis of Proclamation No. 572, Soriano was unconvinced by Trillanes' claim that the Duterte directive was unconstitutional.

"The Court finds no basis to believe that Proclamation No. 572 has breached any constitutional guaranty or that it has encroached on the constitutional power of either the judicial or the executive branch," he said. — RSJ, GMA News