PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAPT. MILO D. MAESTRECAMPO, ET AL., ACCUSED.

People versus Maestrecampo

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which two junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, First Lieutenant Lawrence San Juan and First Lieutenant Rex Bolo, ask the Supreme Court to overturn their conviction for coup d'etat arising from the Oakwood mutiny of July 2003. The case matters because the Court uses it to fix the exact elements of coup d'etat under the Revised Penal Code and to insist that the prosecution prove every one of them beyond reasonable doubt, while also applying the constitutional guarantees of free speech and equal protection to soldiers who publicly withdraw support from a sitting President.

Procedural History

An Information for coup d'etat was filed against more than three hundred officers and enlisted men before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. On the accused's motion, the trial court referred the case to the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation. The Department of Justice Panel found probable cause against only thirty-one accused and dismissed the case against the rest, and an Amended Information was admitted charging those thirty-one, including the two appellants.

At arraignment, most of the accused refused to plead, so the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for them. After the prosecution rested, several accused, including the appellants, moved for leave to file demurrers to evidence. The trial court granted leave but later denied the demurrers. San Juan then moved to change his plea from not guilty of coup d'etat to guilty of the lesser offense of conspiracy to commit coup d'etat, and the trial court denied that motion. Nine other accused re-arraigned and pleaded guilty, were convicted in a partial decision, and later accepted conditional pardon; the remaining accused, except the appellants, applied for and were granted amnesty under Proclamation Number 75.

The trial court then rendered its decision finding the two appellants guilty of coup d'etat as participants and sentencing each to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Their motion for reconsideration was denied, and they brought this joint appeal to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On July 27, 2003, over three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines went to the Oakwood Premier Hotel in Makati City to air their grievances against the government. They occupied the hotel and its immediate vicinity, withdrew their support from President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and demanded the resignation of the President, members of her official cabinet, and top officials of the Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police.

The parties stipulated to a number of facts. No one was killed, injured, or maimed. Not a single shot was fired by either side, and there were no casualties. Oakwood Premier is a privately owned commercial venture, not government owned or controlled, and not a military camp or installation, communication network, public utility, or other facility needed for the exercise and continued possession of governmental power. No government institutions, agencies, or bureaus were housed there, and no governmental functions were being discharged from its premises on that day. The soldiers who assembled there voluntarily and peacefully stood down, surrendered, and returned to barracks after negotiations.

In the aftermath, former Secretary of National Defense Angelo Reyes and intelligence chief General Victor Corpus resigned from their posts. The appellants were among those charged, tried, and convicted of coup d'etat as participants.

Issues

• Whether or not the sudden occupation of a first class hotel in the commercial district of Makati constitutes the swift attack required by the crime of coup d'etat.
• Whether or not the withdrawal of support from the President and the demand for the resignation of cabinet officials constitute an attack against duly constituted authorities.
• Whether or not the withdrawal of support by armed military personnel constitutes an attack to seize or diminish state power.
• Whether or not the appellants' right to equal protection was violated when Senator Gregorio Honasan the Second was exonerated by the Department of Justice while they were not.
• Whether or not San Juan's unaccepted offer to plead guilty to the lesser offense of conspiracy to commit coup d'etat may be used against him as proof of his participation in coup d'etat.

Applicable Provisions

Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of coup d'etat and provides:

Article 134-A. Coup d'etat. — How committed. — The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment, with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.

This provision supplies the four elements the prosecution must prove, and the Court finds the third and fourth elements absent.

Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court governs judicial admissions and provides:

Section 4. Judicial Admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

This provision binds the prosecution to its stipulation that Oakwood Premier Hotel is a private commercial venture and not a facility needed for the exercise and continued possession of governmental power.

Paragraph 3 of Section 27 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court governs offers of plea and provides:

A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.

This provision bars the trial court from using San Juan's rejected plea bargain as evidence of his guilt.

Ruling

On the first three issues, the Court holds that the third and fourth elements of coup d'etat are not present. The third element requires that the attack be directed against duly constituted authorities or any military camp or installation, communication network, public utility, or other facility needed for the exercise and continued possession of power. Oakwood Premier Hotel is a first class hotel in the commercial district of Makati, and the prosecution itself stipulated that it is a private commercial venture, not government owned or controlled, and not a military camp, communication network, public utility, or facility needed for governmental power. A judicial admission is binding on the declarant, and no palpable mistake was shown. Since all governmental power is vested in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and Oakwood Premier Hotel is not part of any branch, it cannot be essential to the continued exercise of governmental powers.

The fourth element, that the purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power, is likewise absent. The trial court itself found that the accused only called for the resignation of the President and other key officials, and it pointed to no showing that the appellants planned to arrogate state power to themselves or to diminish it. At most, their actions were a valid exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, a right that belongs as well, if not more, to those who question, who do not conform, and who differ.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that the appellants' right to equal protection was violated. Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Like Senator Honasan, the appellants were charged with coup d'etat, and he was even pointed to as the mastermind of the Oakwood incident, yet the Department of Justice dismissed the complaint against him on the reasoning that his speeches and statements espousing the use of violence in the overthrow of government were acts covered by the free speech clause. Similarly situated persons were thus treated differently.

On the fifth issue, the Court holds that the trial court erred in using San Juan's offer of plea bargain against him. The trial court itself denied his motion to change his plea, and it could not thereafter reverse itself and treat the rejected offer as proof of guilt. An unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the offer.

Doctrine

The crime of coup d'etat has four elements: first, the offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment; second, it is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; third, the attack is directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities, or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power; and fourth, the purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state power. Every element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the occupation of a privately owned commercial establishment that is not a facility needed for the exercise and continued possession of power does not satisfy the third and fourth elements.

A stipulation of facts in a criminal case is a judicial admission binding on the party who made it, and under Section 4 of Rule 129 it may be contradicted only by showing palpable mistake or that no admission was made. Under paragraph 3 of Section 27 of Rule 130, an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the offer. Equal protection requires that all persons similarly situated be treated alike, and the dismissal of charges against one alleged co-conspirator on free speech grounds while others are prosecuted for the same acts violates that guarantee.

Disposition

The appeal is meritorious; the Court reverses the conviction and acquits the appellants of the crime of coup d'etat.

Remember This

Memorize the four elements of coup d'etat and the rule that occupying a private commercial facility that is not essential to governmental power cannot supply the third and fourth elements. Examiners use this case for the elements of coup d'etat, for judicial admissions in criminal cases, for the inadmissibility of an unaccepted plea bargain, and for equal protection in selective prosecution.