(Eagle News) — Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 Judge Elmo Alameda believes Proclamation No. 572 that declared the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV void ab initio is “sufficient and legal.”
In his 22-page resolution that granted the Department of Justice’s motion for the issuance of an alias warrant and a hold departure order against Trillanes, Alameda said the certification issued by the military that said there was no available copy of the now-senator’s application for amnesty “confirms the claim of the prosecution Senator Trillanes did not apply for amnesty.”
According to Alameda, the “existence of the official copy of the amnesty application form could not be established” in the hearing on Sept. 14.
He said Trillanes failed to “present the original hard copy, a duplicate copy or even a photocopy showing that he personally accomplished and filed with the (Department of National Defense) amnesty committee his official amnesty application form duly acknowledged and stamp-marked received by said office.”
“Unavailing presentation”
Although Trillanes submitted secondary evidence, including an affidavit issued by former Defense Undersecretary Honorio Ascueta, chair of the Defense ad hoc committee who supposedly processed Trillanes’ application, and photographs, articles and video footage reporting what was supposed to be the filing of Trillanes of his amnesty application on Jan. 5, 2011, its presentation was “unavailing for failure to satisfy the requirements in laying the predicate under Rule 130, Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules of Court” in the first place.
Alameda also gave weight to a GMA news report that quoted Trillanes supposedly as he was filing his application for amnesty.
In the report written by Mark Meruenas, Trillanes was quoted as saying: “We are man enough to admit that we have broken rules.”
In the same breath, however, Trillanes was quoted as saying: “I would like to qualify that we did not admit to the charge of ‘coup d’etat’ or anything na finile sa amin because we believe hindi iyon ang nararapat na charge na ginawa sa amin.”
“Seemingly, the statements and declarations made by Senator Trillanes when interviewed by GMA News…are in conflict and irreconcilable with his adamant position that he applied for amnesty and admitted his guilt..Since Senator Trillanes cannot produce the copy of the official application form of amnesty which he purportedly filed with the DND amnesty committee containing the admission of guilt expressly made, it can be safely stated here that Senator Trillanes failed to comply with the minimum requirement of expressly admitting his guilt for the offenses committed during the Oakwood mutiny and the Manila Peninsula incident, ” Alameda said.
Alameda also noted Trillanes failed to recant “all previous statements inconsistent with the requirement of the admission of that guilt.”
No double jeopardy
As for whether or not his sala had jurisdiction over the case of rebellion against Trillanes, Alameda agreed with the prosecution that it continued to have such as the Sept. 7, 2011 order that dismissed the case was “void ab initio” following the issuance of Proclamation No. 572.
Alameda said the state, which the Supreme Court has ruled was entitled to due process of law, would be “deprived of due process if the rebellion case is not revived since the order of dismissal was issued in contravention of the rules and procedures in the processing of amnesty application pursuant to Proclamation No. 75 Series of 2010.”
“While as a rule, the order of dismissal…may be annulled through an independent action, nevertheless, in contemplation of law, it is non-existent and therefore it is not even necessary for the state to take the necessary steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment of order,” Alameda added.
The judge also dismissed the principle of double jeopardy applied as, according to him, the “proscription of double jeopardy presupposes that an accused has been previously charged with an offense, and the case against him has been terminated either by his acquittal or conviction, or dismissed in any other manner without his consent.”
According to Alameda, the order of dismissal then was issued upon a motion filed by Trillanes.
“Thus the requirement that the dismissal must be without the consent of the accused is not present in this case,” Alameda said, noting also that Trillanes’ case does not fall in any of the exceptions to the rule cited by the law–when there is insufficiency of evidence against the accused, and where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings against the accused.
Alameda said the principle of estoppel does not apply either as Proclamation No. 572 was precisely issued to “rectify the erroneous grant of amnesty given to (Trillanes) under Proclamation No. 75, series of 2010.” With a report from Moira Encina
