Trillanes vs Hon. Pimentel [Case Digest]

 

Trillanes vs Hon. Pimentel

G.R. No. 179817

 

Facts:

300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the resignation of the President and key national officials. Petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged, along with his comrades, with coup d’etat defined under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.

The petitioner won as Senator.  He then filed motions to attend the official functions of the Senate and other motions.  Respondent judge denied the Motions.

Petitioner in his petition for certiorari contended that "his charged with the offense of Coup D'etat - a charge which is regarded as a political offense and not crime involving moral turpitude.

 

Issue:

Whether or not there is distinction as to the the crimes involving moral turpitude and as to the political offenses with respect to the admission of bail.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The Rules also state that no person charged with a capital offense,17 or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal action. [Rule 114, Sec. 7, Rules of Court]

That the cited provisions apply equally to rape and coup d’etat cases, both being punishable by reclusion perpetua, is beyond cavil. Within the class of offenses covered by the stated range of imposable penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to the political complexion of or moral turpitude involved in the crime charged.