G.R. No.

179817, June 27, 2008

Trillanes vs Pimentel, et al.

Nature of the Case: Petition for certiorari to set aside the two orders of the trial court and for prohibition and mandamus.

SC Decision: The petition is bereft of merit. Petitioner’s position fails. On the generality and permanence of his requests alone,
petitioner’s case fails to compare with the species of allowable leaves.

Legal Doctrine: Doctrine of Condonation - a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during
a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of
cutting off the right to remove him therefor.

Facts:
Trillanes, while in detention for his infamous coup d etat, won a seat in the Senate. He filed a petition requesting the court to
allow him to, among others, go to the Senate during Mondays to Thursday, from 8AM to 7PM to perform his duties as a duly-
elected Senator. Since the court a quo, in dismissing his petition, invoked the case of Rep. Jalosjos, wherein the Supreme
Court recognized that the accused rapist can still somehow accomplish legislative results while being detained, Trillanes
provided numerous reasons as to why the aforementioned case should not apply to him, to wit: (1) Jalosjos was already
convicted, while Trillanes, as a mere detention prisoner, still enjoys the presumption of innocence. (2) Jalosjos committed a
crime involving moral turpitude, Trillanes's crime is commonly regarded as a political offense. (3) Trillanes posits that he has
the duty to perform his mandate as a Senator since the people, in their sovereign capacity, elected him to such position.

Issue: WON the contentions raised by Respondent are meritorious.

Ruling:
No, the distinctions cited by the petitioner are not elemental to the pronouncement in the case of Jalosjos that election to
Congress is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions 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. Further, in the case of People vs Maceda, it was stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention
or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor hold office, whether elective or appointive. Lastly, his argument
that his election provides the legal justification to serve his mandate, following the doctrine of condonation in administrative
law, cannot prosper because said doctrine does not apply to criminal cases.

Conclusion: Trillanes cannot be allowed to leave his jail to attend to his Senate duties.