View full case

DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR. v. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA

FACTS:

The case involves the Maguindanao massacre, where 57 innocent civilians were killed. The petitioner, who was the Mayor of the Municipality of Datu Unsay, Maguindanao, was one of the principal suspects. Inquests were conducted and a Special Panel of Prosecutors was formed to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) resolved to file murder charges against the petitioner, and the trial venue was transferred from Cotabato City to Metro Manila. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the murder charges. The Panel of Prosecutors charged 196 individuals with multiple murder, partly relying on the affidavits of one Kenny Dalandag. The petitioner requested the inclusion of Dalandag in the murder case, who had already confessed his participation in the massacre. However, the Secretary of Justice denied the request. As a result, the petitioner filed a petition for mandamus seeking to compel the inclusion of Dalandag as an accused in the murder cases. The trial court dismissed the petition for mandamus, hence this appeal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Panel of Prosecutors committed grave abuse of discretion in identifying the individuals to be indicted for the Maguindanao massacre.

  2. Whether the exclusion of Dalandag from the list of accused amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

  3. Whether the admission of the accused into the Witness Protection Program of the Government as a state witness was justified and complied with the conditions prescribed by Republic Act No. 6981.

RULING:

  1. The Court holds that the Panel of Prosecutors did not commit grave abuse of discretion in identifying the individuals to be indicted for the Maguindanao massacre. The Court emphasizes that it does not interfere in the exercise of the Executive Department's discretion in determining probable cause for the prosecution of supposed offenders, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

  2. The Court finds that the exclusion of Dalandag as an accused did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. The Court explains that the Panel of Prosecutors' procedure in excluding Dalandag as an accused was not arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic. The Court also notes that Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which requires that the complaint or information be filed against all persons responsible for the offense, may have exceptions, such as when a participant in the commission of a crime becomes a state witness.

  3. The admission of the accused into the Witness Protection Program of the Government as a state witness was warranted by the absolute necessity of his testimony to the successful prosecution of the criminal charges. All the conditions prescribed by Republic Act No. 6981 were met in his case. Thus, he could not be charged anymore for his participation in the Maguindanao massacre, as his admission operated as an acquittal, unless he later refuses or fails to testify in accordance with his sworn statement that became the basis for his discharge.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of probable cause and whether criminal cases should be filed in court is within the discretion of the public prosecutors, and the Court does not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations except in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

  • Grave abuse of discretion refers to the exercise of discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner, resulting in the evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

  • A participant in the commission of a crime may become a state witness through discharge from the criminal case or through the approval of their application for admission into the Witness Protection Program.

  • The requirements for a participant to become a state witness under both the Rules of Court and Republic Act No. 6981 (The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act) are essentially the same, except for the requirement that the offense be a grave felony under Republic Act No. 6981.

  • An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the court may be admitted to the Witness Protection Program if they comply with the requirements of Republic Act No. 6981.

  • The discharge or exclusion of a co-accused in order for him to be utilized as a Prosecution witness rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court, which must be exercised with due regard to the proper administration of justice.

  • The public prosecutor, who has knowledge of the evidence and the availability or non-availability of other witnesses, should determine which of the several accused would best qualify to be discharged as a witness.

  • The admission of an accused into the Witness Protection Program operates as an acquittal and he cannot be subsequently included in the criminal information except when he fails or refuses to testify.

  • Mandamus may be resorted to in order to compel a tribunal or officer to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or particular way discretion is to be exercised.