Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TRILLANES VS PIMENTEL

TRILLANES VS PIMENTEL

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by Ross Lyne

More info:

Published by: Ross Lyne on Sep 25, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
TRILLANES VS PIMENTEL
Election to Congress is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement as thefunctions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement.Justification for confinement with its underlying rationale of public self-defense applies equallyto detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted prisoners-appellants like Jalosjos.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Trillane
s IV is on trial for coup d’etat in relation to the “Oakwood Incident.” In the
2007 elections, he won a seat in the Senate with a six-year term commencing at noon on June30, 2007. Petitioner now asks the Court that he be allowed to attend all official functions of theSenate, alleging mainly that his case is distinct from that of Jalosjos as his case is still pendingresolution whereas that in the Jalosjos case, there was already conviction.
ISSUE:Whether or not valid classification between petitioner and Jalosjos exists
 
RULING:
 The petition is bereft of merit.In attempting to strike a distinction between his case and that of Jalosjos, petitioner chieflypoints out that former Rep. Romeo Jalosjos (Jalosjos) was already convicted, albeit hisconviction was pending appeal, when he filed a motion similar to petitioner's Omnibus Motion,whereas he (petitioner) is a mere detention prisoner. He asserts that he continues to enjoy civiland political rights since the presumption of innocence is still in his favor.Further, petitioner illustrates that Jalosjos was charged with crimes involving moral turpitude,i.e., two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness, whereas he is indictedfor coup d'etat which is regarded as a "political offense."Furthermore, petitioner justifies in his favor the presence of noble causes in expressinglegitimate grievances against the rampant and institutionalized practice of graft and corruptionin the AFP.xxxA plain reading of Jalosjos suggests otherwise, however.The distinctions cited by petitioner were not elemental in the pronouncement in Jalosjos that

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->