Court urged to issue warrant vs Trillanes for failure to present amnesty application

MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Justice has insisted for the issuance of a warrant and travel ban against Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV due to his failure to present the primary evidence to prove that he did file for an amnesty.

State prosecutors, led by Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon, filed on Wednesday a 10-page Reply on Trillanes’ Opposition to their motion for an arrest warrant and travel ban before Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150.

READ: No warrant as court gives Trillanes, DOJ more time for pleadings

The DOJ pointed out that the photo evidence submitted by Trillanes’ camp that shows him holding a copy of the application form “did not bear proof of receipt by the DND.”

The video evidence also “did not prove that he has admitted guilt and participation in the Oakwood Mutiny and the Peninsula Mania Hotel incident,” the pleading read.

“As aptly pointed out by this Honorable Court during the motion hearing, the best evidence that accused could submit to prove his claim is a copy of his application form bearing the receiving mark/stamp of the DND. This, the accused failed to do so,” the Justice department also said.

Reynaldo Robles, Trillanes’ legal counsel, has admitted to the court that the senator has yet to find his copy of the application form with receiving stamp, but he stressed that they have circumstantial evidence to back up their argument.

The DOJ also pointed out that Trillanes was quoted in a news report where he “adamantly refused to admit his guilt.”

The prosecutors said the 2011 GMA news report—which was asked by the court to be authenticated—quoted Trillanes 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.”

Trillanes, for his part, earlier said that the pro-forma application for amnesty required him to sign a general admission of guilt that read: “I hereby acknowledge my involvement/participation in the subject incidents 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.”

A space is provided for the applicant to affix his printed name and signature.

READ: DND should account for 'missing' amnesty form, Trillanes lawyer says

'Discovery' of Trillanes' non-compliance warrant a setting aside of 2011 dismissal

The DOJ also argued that while the court—in a ruling also penned by Judge Elmo Alameda—dismissed the rebellion case pursuant to the amnesty, the Supreme Court has said that a ruling may be set aside based on some exceptions.

Trillanes’ supposed non-compliance to the requirements constitutes “the existence of a special or compelling circumstances that would warrant the setting aside of the dismissal of the case.”

The DOJ also said that the “issuance of Proclamation 572 was brought about by the discovery of the non-filing of the application form for amnesty by accused Trillanes which renders him ineligible to the grant of amnesty.”

President Rodrigo Duterte has earlier said that it was Solicitor General Jose Calida who said that “there’s a mistake” in the grant of the amnesty. “It has to be corrected, I cannot refuse,” the president said last September 8.

Defense chief Delfin Lorenzana also said that he received a call from Calida inquiring about the amnesty papers of “Trillanes and his men.” The solicitor general also sent someone to “research” on the issue.

READ: DND chief allowed Jose Calida’s check on Trillanes records

Trillanes has initiated a probe into the alleged impropriety of Calida’s stock ownership of a security agency that has bagged multi-million contracts with several government agencies.

Trillanes has said that Proclamation 572 is meant to silence him as one of Duterte's fiercest critics, but the government has dismissed his claims of political persecution.

Trillanes’ camp is given five days to file their Rejoinder on the DOJ’s reply. After their pleading is filed, the “incidents shall be deemed submitted for resolution.” — Kristine Joy Patag