A MAKATI court has thrown out for lack of
merit the Department of Justice’s motion for reconsideration
seeking to overturn an earlier ruling dismissing the rebellion
case against civilians led by former Vice President Teofisto
Guingona in connection with the Magdalo-engineered standoff at
the Manila Peninsula Hotel last Nov. 29.
Judge Elmo Alameda of the Makati regional
trial court branch 150 said he could have dismissed the motion
outright when it was filed since it did not follow the required
provision on timelines for the filing of pleadings.
He reiterated his earlier ruling that that
there was no probable cause to issue a commitment order against
Guingona, Infanta Bishop Emeritus Julio Labayen and other
civilians who joined the soldiers at the hotel while the latter
were calling for President Arroyo’s ouster.
In his previous order, Alameda said the
prosecution panel did not have sufficient evidence to indict. He
said the court is not convinced that Guingona and company
conspired and confederated with the Magdalo soldiers, led by
detained senator Antonio Trillanes IV and former Scout Ranger
regiment commander Brig. General Danilo Lim, in taking up arms
against the government.
He said the prosecution’s evidence merely
showed that the accused-civilians were arrested for ignoring
calls by the authorities to get out of the hotel and were very
far from the proof needed to prove the charge of rebellion.
Ernesto Francisco Jr., counsel for Guingona
and Trillanes, isssued a statement saying that the dismissal of
the case against the Guingona group should lead to a similar
dismissal of the rebellion charge against 14 other civilians who
are still undergoing preliminary investigation, including
Guingona’s daughter Estrella and journalist Herman Tiu Laurel.
Francisco said that at the inquest on Nov.
30, the prosecution found no probable cause against the 14 who
were then released for further preliminary investigation.
He also urged the court to dismiss the
rebellion charge against Trillanes, Lim and 16 military and
former military men, or to consider downgrading the charge to
inciting to sedition. He pointed out that inciting to sedition
was the charge slapped by the police against all the accused
initially and this was only upgraded to rebellion later.
A still-unresolved motion for partial reconsideration earlier
filed by the defense before Alameda’s court pointed out that
based on Supreme Court decisions, rebellion is only present when
there is armed public uprising, crowd action, vast movement of
men, a complex net of intrigue and plots, or civil war. –
Ashzel Hachero
