The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the Makati City Regional Trial Court’s decision regarding its rebellion case against former senator Antonio Trillanes IV after President Rodrigo Duterte revoked his amnesty in 2018.
In a decision by the CA Sixth Division, Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati City RTC Branch 150 allegedly committed “grave abuse of discretion” when he did not allow Trillanes to present testimonial evidence to prove that he applied and was granted amnesty by former President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III in 2011.
“The [trial court] limited itself only to hearing oral arguments and receiving affidavits,” CA stated to reverse Alameda’s order in 2018.
“It acted with grave abuse of discretion that amounted to excess of jurisdiction, thus ousting it of jurisdiction, when it shunned testimonial evidence,” it added.
In a statement, Trillanes said the “rule of law prevailed” in his case.
“Sana all na judges and justices ay may ganitong sense of justice to check the prevailing authoritarianism in the country,” said the former legislator who thanked the Court of Appeals magistrates for the decision.
Court of Appeals overturns Makati court’s decision on rebellion case vs. Trillanes
Alameda was also the judge handling the rebellion case against Trillanes in the 2007 Manila Peninsula Siege.
He dismissed the case in 2011 after Aquino granted amnesty to Trillanes, a former Navy officer who accompanied him to the Manila Pen.
But President Rodrigo Duterte revoked Aquino’s amnesty in August 2018 because Trillanes allegedly did not comply with certain requirements such as applying for amnesty and not confessing to the offense committed in connection with the Oakwood Mutiny in 2003 and the Manila Peninsula Siege in 2007.
“A revoked amnesty can render void an order or judgment that dismissed a criminal action because of the amnesty, but the process entails a proper judicial inquiry which either party to the controversy, be it government or grantee, may initiate via the proper legal tools and remedies with the proper court clothed with jurisdiction,” the Court of Appeals said.
“The court inquiry cannot be merely summary and cursory, but one that shall give the parties ample opportunity to be heard on their respective evidence,” it added.