ANTONIO F.

TRILLANES IV, petitioner,

vs.
HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT- BRANCH 148, MAKATI CITY;
GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, VICE ADM. ROGELIO I. CALUNSAG,
MGEN. BENJAMIN DOLORFINO, AND LT. COL. LUCIARDO
OBEÑA, respondents.
G.R. No. 179817 June 27, 2008

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.

x x x Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee

meetings for five (5) days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man
with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not
only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a
mockery of the purposes of the correction system.