QC court junks conspiracy to commit sedition case vs. Trillanes, others

A Quezon City court has dismissed the case of conspiracy to commit sedition against former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, Peter Joemel Advincula, and several others in connection with the alleged ouster plot against former President Rodrigo Duterte.

In a resolution, the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 138 granted the demurrer to evidence filed separately by Trillanes, Advincula or Bikoy, Jonnel Sangalang, Yolanda Villanueva Ong, Fr. Flaviano Villanueva, Fr. Albert Elejo, Vicente Romano III, and Ronnil Carlo Enriquez.

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, according to the court.

''[T]he court found that the prosecution failed to present competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt against all accused," it said.

"Succinctly, the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition as alleged in the information and the precise degree of participation therein by all accused," it added.

The case stemmed from the "Ang Totoong Narcolist" videos, a series of videos implicating Duterte, his family, and Senator Bong Go in the illegal drug trade.

Advincula claimed that he was Bikoy, the hooded figure who narrated the videos.

He also claimed that the videos were part of "Project Sodoma," a supposed ploy to unseat Duterte and install former Vice President Leni Robredo in his place.

In 2019, Advincula surfaced at the headquarters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to stand by the allegations in the videos. He surrendered weeks later to tag the Liberal Party as the mastermind of the series.

In its ruling, the court said the prosecution presented only three witnesses who had no personal knowledge of the incidents reported by Advincula.

"Basic is the rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that he knows from his own personal knowledge or those that are derived from his perception," it said.

"A witness may not testify on what he merely learned, read, or heard from others because such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned, read, or heard," it added.

Due to the lack of personal knowledge, the court said the testimonies of the three witnesses had no probative value.

Further, the court said that Advincula was not presented during the trial to testify to his statements, which the court called "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 said.

"Clear are the records that this sinumpaang salaysay was not authenticated and verified by the affiant accused, Advincula, at the time of the trial. Jurisprudence dictates that an affidavit is merely hearsay evidence when its affiant or maker did not take the witness stand," it added.

The court also said that the documentary evidence does not prove the commission of the crime of conspiracy.

It said that though accused Joel Saracho failed to notify the court of the timeliness of his motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case should also apply to him.

Meanwhile, accused Eduardo Acierto, a former policeman, remains at large, the court said. — VBL, GMA Integrated News