Crim Pro Digest: Ampatuan v. De Lima, et.al. (GR No. 197291)

Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses, Definition of Complaint or Information  & Rule 119: Trial, Discharge of the Accused to be State Witness


G. R. No. 197291        April 3, 2013


DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR., Petitioner, 


vs. 


SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of Department of Justice, CSP CLARO ARELLANO, as Chief State Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service amd PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE, headed by the RSP PETER MEDALLE, Respondents. 

BERSAMIN, J.:



FACTS:

On November 23, 2009, 57 innocent civilians were massacred in Sitio Masalay, Municipality of Ampatuan. Maguindanao Province. Among the principal suspects was petitioner, the the Mayor of the Municipality of Datu Unsay, Maguindanao Province. Inquest proceedings were conducted against the petitioner at General Santos (Tambler) Airport Lounge, before he was flown to Manila and detained at the main office of the National Bureau of Investigation.  The NBI and the PNP charged other suspects, numbering more than a hundred, for what became  aptly known as the Maguindanao Massacre. Through the Department Order No. 948, then Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera constituted a Special Panel of Prosecutors to conduct preliminarty investigation.



On Novemeber 27, 2009, the DOJ resolved to file the corresponding informations for murder against the petitioner, and to issue subpoena to several persons.A month after, Secretary of Justice Devanadera transmitted her letter to Chief Justice Puno requesting the transfer of the venue of trial of the Maguindannao massacre from Cotabato City to Metro Manila, either in QC or Manila, to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The court granted the transfer of venue to Metro Manila, but prior to the transfer, the Prosecution filed a manifestation regarding the filing of 15 additional informations for murder against petitioner in Branch 15 of the Cotabato City RTC, which later on transferred to RTC in QC. Branch 211. the new venue of the trial pursuant to the resolution of the Court.


Petitioners pleaded not guilty to each of the 41 informations for murder to each of the 41 informations for murder and was arraigned on January 5, 2010, February 3. 2010, and July 28, 2010 respectively. 


On February 5, 2010, the Panel of Prosecutors issued a joint resolution that charged 196 individuals with multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao Massacre relied on the twin affidavits of Kenny Dalandag. Six months after, Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ and issued its amended pre-trial order, wherein Dalandag was listed as one of the Prosecution witnesses.


Thereafter, petitioner wrote to respondent Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistance Chief State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon to request the inclusion of Dalandag in the informations for murder considering that he had already confessed his participation in the massacre through his two sworn declarations. However, she denied the petitioner's request. The petitioner, brought a petition for mandamus in the RTC Manila, seeking to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in the various murder cases undergoing trial in the QC WTC. Pre-Trial was ordered. In the manifestation and motion filed by the respondent, they questioned the propriety of the conduct of a trial in a proceeding for mandamus. Petitioner opposed. Petitioner then filed a motion for the production of documents which the RTC Manila granted after the respondents did not file either a comment or an opposition. Respondents then sought reconsideration.


The RTC Manila issued a subpoena to Dalandag, requiring him to appear and testify. The respondents moved to quash the subpoena. Petitioners opposed the motion to quash. The parties filed their reply. The RTC Manila, then, issued the assailed order dismissing the petition for mandamus. 


Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.


ISSUE:

WON the respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge the witness, Kenny Dalandag, as an accused for multiple murder in relation to tjhe Maguindanao massacre despite his admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. - NO


HELD:


The exclusion of Dalandag from the charges was not a grave abuse of discretion. Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates charging all responsible parties, but exceptions exist, such as when an accomplice becomes a state witness. The trial court's discretion to discharge an accused as a witness must be exercised judiciously, considering the necessity of their testimony and relying on the public prosecutor's recommendations.


Under RA 6981, there's no need to first charge a person as an accused to qualify for the Witness Protection Program. Admission as a state witness also implies acquittal unless the witness refuses to testify. The DOJ, not the trial court, grants immunity. If a witness is charged, the public prosecutor, with a certification, can petition the court for discharge, leading to their exclusion from the charges.


CONCLUSION:


WHEREFORE, the Court DENIED the petition of review on certiorari; AFFIRMED the final order

issued on Civil Case No. 10-124777 by the RTC Manila; and ORDERED the petitioner to pay the cost of the suit.

SOURCE/S:
G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013  DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR., Petitioner, vs. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the Department of Justice, CSP CLARO ARELLANO, as Chief State Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service, and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE, headed by RSP PETER MEDALLE, Respondents. (n.d.). The LawPhil Project. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_197291_2013.html
                          

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CRIM PRO Digest: Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 213847)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 114:  Bail, a Matter of Right; Exception G. R. No. 213847                 July 12, 2016 JUAN PONCE ENRILE , Petitioner, vs.  SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Respondents. BERSAMIN, J. : DOCTRINE: Primary objective of bail  – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good measure of the accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to  ensure that the accused appears at trial . Bail is a right and a matter of discretion  – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of ...
Read more

How to Digest a Case: FORMAT

  FORMAT OF A CASE DIGEST TITLE: Include the petitioner and respondents of the case and the reference. Sometimes, students only include the Volume Number of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)/Philippine Reports (Phil) and the first page where the case appeared or written. Others only include the Gazette Record Number together with the Date of the case. Still, others include both. Others even add the ponente or the justice that penned the case. FACTS: There is no need to include all the facts. Just include those that are relevant to the subject. The contents of the facts must be brief and concise. It must be limited to the main facts of the case which of course should focus on the particular subject assigned. ISSUES: Include only those that are relevant. Issues are usually framed in the form of questions that are answerable by "yes" or "no," for example, "Is the contract void? “Sometimes, students frame the question by starting it with the word "whe...
Read more

CRIM PRO Digest: Soria and Bista v. Desierto, et.al. (G.R. Nos. 153254-25)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 113:  Arrest, Duty of an Arresting Officer G. R. Nos. 153524-25                 January 31, 2005 RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA , Petitioners, vs.  HON. ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as Head of the Office of the Ombudsman, HON. ORLANDO CASIMIRO in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Military, P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE, SPO2 ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR JR., PO3 JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B. CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A. BENAZA, SPO1 FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL,  Respondents. CHICO-NAZARIO, J. : DOCTRINE: Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code states that the Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties provided in the preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial autho...
Read more