The Court of Appeals (CA) last Monday, March 1, set aside a Makati City regional trial court (RTC) order that revived the rebellion case against former Sen. Antonio F.  Trillanes IV for his alleged role in the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

Set aside by the CA, in a decision written by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr., were the resolutions issued by Judge Elmo M. Alameda of RTC Branch 150 on Sept. 25, 2018 and Dec. 18, 2018.

Judge Alameda on Sept. 25, 2018 affirmed the legality of President Duterte’s issuance of Proclamation No. 572 which revoked the grant of amnesty to Trillanes under Proclamation No. 75 of then President Benigno S. Aquino III.  

With his pronouncement, Alameda granted the motion of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to re-open the case and issue an arrest warrant and a hold departure order against Trillanes.

Alameda ruled that Trillanes failed to comply with the minimum requirements embodied in the amnesty grant under Proclamation No. 75.

Trillanes, Alameda said, failed to prove that he actually applied to be granted amnesty and that he expressly admitted his guilt to the crimes committed pertaining to Manila Peninsula siege.

 Thus, Alameda said that since the amnesty granted to Trillanes was revoked by Proclamation No. 572 for non-compliance with the requirements, the dismissal of the rebellion case on Sept. 7, 2011 was void and cannot attain finality.

When the trial court denied Trillanes’ motion for reconsideration on Dec. 18, 2018, he elevated the issue before the CA.

Trillanes told the CA that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of Alameda when the judge upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 572; re-opened the rebellion case with the issuance of a warrant of arrest/hold departure order; and failed to allow him reasonable opportunity to present his evidence.

The CA said:

“In the criminal case subject of herein petition, the prosecution did not file an action for the annulment of or for relief from the Order of September 7, 2011, nor did it move for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to invalidate the said order.

“The alleged void Order, which dismissed the rebellion charge was attacked only through the Omnibus Motion filed in the same case, which prayed for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and hold departure order against the petitioner (Trillanes).

 “The attack, therefore, was merely a collateral one. Tested against the outlined procedural standards above, the remedy resorted to by the DOJ cannot be anything else but irregular and improper. The respondent court gravely abused its discretion when it took cognizance of DOJ's Omnibus Motion, set aside its Order of September 7, 2011, and revived the criminal action against the petitioner,”  

 The appellate court pointed out that compared to Makati RTC Branch 148 which conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the motion by the DOJ  to reopen the coup d’etat case against Trillanes by virtue of Proclamation 572, Judge Alameda merely conducted a summary hearing through affidavits and documents.

In resolving Trillanes’ petition, the CA ruled:

“The respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion when, without taking ample time to pause and ponder, whether or not it retained jurisdiction, summarily and cursorily considered the Omnibus Motion upon a matter involving a criminal action that it has long-ago dismissed.

“It acted with grave abuse of discretion that amounted to excess of jurisdiction, thus ousting it of jurisdiction, when it shunned testimonial evidence.

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders of 25 September 2018 and 18 December 2018, having been issued by the respondent court that no longer had jurisdiction on a dismissed criminal action and that acted with grave abuse of discretion, are SET ASIDE and VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

Associate Justices Marie Christine Ascarraga Jacob and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo Sale concurred in the decision.