Appellate court affirms Zaldy Ampatuan’s indictment in Massacre case
CMFR/PHILIPPINES – PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS and press freedom organizations are now awaiting the arraignment of suspended Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan after the Manila Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his indictment for the Nov. 23, 2009 Ampatuan town, Maguindanao massacre.
In its 8 November 2011 decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam, the Manila CA Special (Former) 11th Division dismissed the amended petition for certiorari (with application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction) filed by Ampatuan questioning his reinstatement as an accused in the multiple murder case against 196 alleged planners and perpetrators of the Ampatuan, Maguindanao Massacre in May 2010.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that any aggrieved person can file a petition for certiorari “when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”.
The appellate court said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its 5 May 2010 resolution as alleged by Zaldy Ampatuan. It explained that “…the DOJ acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction when it gave more weight to the positive declaration of the prosecution witness Abdul Talusan y Ogalingan over the defense of denial and alibi by Petitioner (Zaldy).”
Talusan’s testimony was one of the additional evidence presented by private prosecutors asking reconsideration of the 16 April 2010 decision of then acting Justice Sec. Alberto Agra dropping Zaldy and his uncle Akmad “Tato” from the list of accused perpetrators of the Ampatuan Massacre. The 16 April 2010 decision was reversed by Agra on 5 May 2010.
“…the DOJ has an ample latitude of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders,” the 40-page decision read.
Addressing the possibility that it may be accused of succumbing to public pressure, the decision said in its final note that:
“We are not oblivious to the Petitioner’s claim that the DOJ, in reversing its April 16, 2010 Resolution, was rightly or wrongly perceived to have merely given in to the pressure brought by the victims’ families’ clamor for empathy or even the public condemnation brought about by the initial exclusion of herein Petitioner from the charge sheet. Precisely, it is the existence of these controversies that make the Maguindanao massacre a celebrated case.
“In denying the petition, We are not succumbing to any internal or external pressure whatsoever; We so rule simply because the prosecution has established the presence of probable cause that warrants Petitioner’s inclusion as one of the accused in this case. Again, We are not concerned about the Petitioner’s culpability or non-culpability; We only hold that he should be held for trial in the absence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that would taint the DOJ’s finding of probable cause.”
In his dissenting opinion, the chairman of the Former 11th Division, Associate Justice Mario Guariña III, said Zaldy Ampatuan should be given “the opportunity to respond to the supplemental motion for reconsideration and new evidence filed against him.” Justice Guariña said Zaldy has “every reason to contest the presentation of the new evidence against him” citing: (1) “indisputable evidence” against Kenny Dalandag’s claim that Zaldy was at the 22 November 2009 meeting where the “massacre” was allegedly planned; (2) possibility of Talusan being a “coached or rehearsed witness”; (3) “lost” opportunity to present evidence against Talusan “in a total display of misguided justice.”
Zaldy was among the Ampatuan clan members accused of planning and executing the 23 November 2009 massacre of those who joined the convoy led by the wife of Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu to Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao. They were supposed to file the politician’s certificate of candidacy for the Maguindanao gubernatorial race in May 2010. Six of the 58 massacre victims were motorists who were not part of the convoy and were on their way to Shariff Aguak for other reasons.
As of press time, only 64 out of the 196 suspected perpetrators have been arraigned. The latest Ampatuan arraigned was patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr., who was arraigned after his own petition for certiorari was junked by the Manila CA.
[…] for certiorari was junked by the Manila CA’s former 16th Division last August 2011. The CA affirmed its decision on Tato’s decision last 3 January 2012. If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to […]
[…] Special (Former) 11th Division of the Manila Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the decision of former acting Justice Sec. Alberto Agra to reinstate Zaldy Ampatuan in the Massacre multiple murder […]