Ampatuan Trial update: ‘UNSAY’ TRIAL ON MERITS RESUMES
THE PROSECUTION concluded its presentation of evidence in the bail proceedings for the primary accused in the Ampatuan Massacre last Jan. 26. Judge Jocelyn Solis Reyes of Branch 221 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court had resumed hearings on Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan Jr.’s petitions for bail last December after consolidating Unsay’s bail petition for the first 56 counts of murder and his motion for bail for the 57th Information.
The last prosecution witness presented during the bail hearings was Senior Inspector Jasper Magana of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. Magana performed the DNA examination on the last unidentified body– which turned out to be that of TV reporter Victor Nunez– exhumed at Barangay Masalay, Ampatuan town, Maguindanao where 35 of the 57 men and women killed on November 23, 2009 had been buried by the killers.
The prosecution also presented the National Bureau of Investigation’s Reynaldo Romero, one of the seven medico-legal officers who conducted autopsies on the 57 bodies recovered. Romero conducted 10 autopsies including one on journalist Rosell Morales.
CA junks Andal Sr.’s petition
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals (CA) in Manila junked last Jan. 31 the petition for certiorari and supplemental petition filed by former Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan Sr. for “lack of merit.”
The CA’s Special Eleventh Division said in a 27-page decision that: “After a careful scrutiny of the records of this case, we find and so hold that there is no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the DOJ insofar as its April 16, 2010 and May 5, 2010 resolutions upheld petitioner’s indictment for the charge of multiple murder.”
The decision was penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam. Associate Justices Antonio Villamor and Amy Lazaro Javier concurred.
It added that: “…the DOJ acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction when it gave more weight to the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses over the unsubstantiated defense of denial and alibi by Petitioners. Verily, the DOJ’s disposition is in accordance with the facts, the law and prevailing jurisprudence on the matter at hand.”
The appellate court also ruled that Andal Sr. has “fully availed of, and was amply afforded, the right to ventilate his case.”
Andal Sr., through his counsels, filed a petition for certiorari questioning his inclusion in the list of those charged with multiple murder for the killing of 57 persons. Andal Sr. claimed that former acting Justice Secretary Alberto Agra committed grave abuse of discretion when the latter upheld the results of the preliminary investigation finding probable cause to file multiple murder charges against him last April 16, 2010.
On May 10, 2010, Andal Sr. filed a supplemental petition questioning the granting of the motions for reconsideration filed by the victims’ families asking the reinstatement of suspended ARMM Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan and Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan Sr. in the Informations.
The appellate court has yet to decide on the separate petitions for certiorari filed by Zaldy, Akmad “Tato” Sr., and Anwar Ampatuan.
A “new” suspect
Lawyer Harry Roque, representing seven of the families of the journalists and media workers killed, filed last Jan. 27 murder charges against Staff Sergeant Joselito Andrada, another security aide of Unsay. Roque told GMANews.TV that Andrada has been with the Philippine Army Provost Marshall since January 2010.
The complaint, based on the testimony of Police Officer Rainer Ebus, alleged that Andrada was among those who intercepted the Mangudadatu convoy and two other vehicles that happened to pass by.
In a Jan. 28 press release, the complainants said Andrada “was part of the blocking party deployed at the crossing beginning on the 19th of November; He was there on the 20th, the 21st and the 22nd.”
“(H)e was there on that fateful day the Ampatuan-instigated blocking party waylaid the convoy in the mid-morning of Nov. 23, 2010. Indeed, he took part in the said unlawful activity,” they said in the same press release.
In behalf of his clients, Roque also filed last Jan. 23 a joint complaint-affidavit for plunder, graft and corruption, and forfeiture against 25 members of the Ampatuan clan before the Office of the Ombudsman. The complaint-affidavit was based on the investigative report of Mindanews editor Carol Arguillas for the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism on the assets of the Ampatuans.
Unsay’s lawyers: No to live coverage
Last Dec. 6, 2010, Unsay’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the November 2010 petition for live radio and television coverage filed by media organizations as well as the Nov. 22, 2010 letter of President Benigno Aquino III supporting the petition.
Unsay’s lawyers argued in their 31-page consolidated comment that live coverage of the trial of Unsay and 194 others for multiple murder would violate the right of the accused to due process. They said that live coverage could influence the judge’s decision and “shoo away witnesses indispensable for (an accused person’s) defense.”
“To make his entitlement effectively enforced and observed, criminal proceedings where he is involved must be insulated not only from prejudicial publicity but from public opinion,” the defense lawyers said.
They also argued that the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights recognizes the importance of excluding media in criminal proceedings. They also said that a “good number of courts” in the United States—after which the Philippine Justice system is patterned—“do not allow” media coverage.
Journalists’ reply
In its Jan. 20 reply, the Public Interest Law Center (PILC), which represents the journalists and media organizations that filed the petition, said the defense “relie(d) on purposeful misrepresentations, hypocrisy and clever manipulation of data to defeat a legitimate claim.”
PILC claimed that the defense offered “no explanation…as to why the media and the people should be excluded from the courtroom on account of the Ampatuan trial involving morals or public order or national security or privacy.”
PILC said that “the right to due process is not limited to the accused; due process as a right accrues as well to the benefit of the People.”
PILC also explained in its 21-page petition that the prosecution will also carry the burden of “discouraging witnesses who possess knowledge that can help the defense from testifying, it may also discourage witnesses who possess information that can help the prosecution from coming forward…. To put it simply, the sword cuts both ways – televised live coverage is therefore not solely an instrument to benefit the prosecution, to be used to browbeat the accused.” It also argued that live coverage could even encourage witnesses to testify.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CMFR, kathryn raymundo. kathryn raymundo said: RT @cmfr: Ampatuan Massacre Case update: ‘UNSAY’ TRIAL ON MERITS RESUMES httpss://bit.ly/ewIAAR #cmfr #pressfreedom #fb […]
[…] Ampatuan Massacre Update ‘Unsay’ Trial on Merits Resumes […]
[…] massacre victims (private complainants in the murder cases) filed before the Supreme Court the “petition to allow radio and television coverage” last 19 November 2010. They asked the Court to: (1) “abandon” its resolutions on the […]