Court junks sedition case vs Trillanes, priests, etc over Bikoy Narcolist video | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Court junks sedition case vs Trillanes, priests, etc over Bikoy Narcolist video
Court junks sedition case vs Trillanes, priests, etc over Bikoy Narcolist video
Mike Navallo,
ABS-CBN News
Published Sep 06, 2023 07:12 PM PHT
MANILA —A Quezon City court junked due to insufficiency of evidence the conspiracy to commit sedition case against ex-Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, two priests and several others over the “Ang Totoong Narcolist,” which circulated online in 2019.
MANILA —A Quezon City court junked due to insufficiency of evidence the conspiracy to commit sedition case against ex-Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, two priests and several others over the “Ang Totoong Narcolist,” which circulated online in 2019.
The Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 138, in a resolution signed July 14, 2023 but was only released Wednesday, granted the demurrers to evidence filed by 8 accused, including Peter Joemel “Bikoy” Advincula himself.
The Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 138, in a resolution signed July 14, 2023 but was only released Wednesday, granted the demurrers to evidence filed by 8 accused, including Peter Joemel “Bikoy” Advincula himself.
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss due to lack of prosecution evidence.
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss due to lack of prosecution evidence.
In the videos, Advincula accused then-President Rodrigo Duterte and his family of involvement in illegal drugs, only to recant later on and accuse opposition figures of plotting to oust Duterte.
In the videos, Advincula accused then-President Rodrigo Duterte and his family of involvement in illegal drugs, only to recant later on and accuse opposition figures of plotting to oust Duterte.
ADVERTISEMENT
He was among those charged but refused to testify.
He was among those charged but refused to testify.
With Bikoy refusing to testify, the QC court said prosecution failed to present a vital witness, which was “fatal” to their case.
With Bikoy refusing to testify, the QC court said prosecution failed to present a vital witness, which was “fatal” to their case.
Instead, prosecution presented 3 police officers who had no personal knowledge of the case.
Instead, prosecution presented 3 police officers who had no personal knowledge of the case.
"Basic is the rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge of the narrations made by accused Advincula, it follows that their testimonies have no probative value in proving the circumstances indicated in accused Advincula's Sinumpaang Salaysay on which the instant case for conspiracy to commit sedition instituted by the prosecution against all accused are premised," the court said in the resolution.
"Basic is the rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge of the narrations made by accused Advincula, it follows that their testimonies have no probative value in proving the circumstances indicated in accused Advincula's Sinumpaang Salaysay on which the instant case for conspiracy to commit sedition instituted by the prosecution against all accused are premised," the court said in the resolution.
"Additionally, it cannot escape the attention of this Court that the prosecution's vital witness who executed the Sinumpaang Salaysay, which is the chief evidence of the prosecution in this case, was not presented in Court to testify as to the veracity, truthfulness and accuracy of his statements made therein. This is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The essential witness with personal knowledge of the entire incident was demonstrably not presented in Court to substantiate the very basis of the instant criminal action filed," it added.
"Additionally, it cannot escape the attention of this Court that the prosecution's vital witness who executed the Sinumpaang Salaysay, which is the chief evidence of the prosecution in this case, was not presented in Court to testify as to the veracity, truthfulness and accuracy of his statements made therein. This is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The essential witness with personal knowledge of the entire incident was demonstrably not presented in Court to substantiate the very basis of the instant criminal action filed," it added.
The Court also said the other documentary evidence and USBs presented did not prove commission of the crime while Advincula’s earlier statement was not authenticated and verified, therefore, hearsay.
The Court also said the other documentary evidence and USBs presented did not prove commission of the crime while Advincula’s earlier statement was not authenticated and verified, therefore, hearsay.
"In the face of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to present competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt against all accused. Succinctly, the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime of conspiracy to commit secition as alleged in the Information and the precise degree of participation therein by all accused," it also said.
"In the face of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to present competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt against all accused. Succinctly, the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime of conspiracy to commit secition as alleged in the Information and the precise degree of participation therein by all accused," it also said.
FROM THE ARCHIVES
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
