Case Summary (G.R. No. 213455)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Massacre: November 23, 2009; inquest of petitioner: November 26, 2009; DOJ constituted Special Panel and resolved to file informations: late November–early December 2009; transfer of venue to Metro Manila ordered: December 8, 2009; joint resolution charging 196 individuals: February 5, 2010; Dalandag affidavits dated December 7, 2009; Dalandag admitted to Witness Protection Program: August 13, 2010; petitioner’s requests to include Dalandag as accused: October–November 2010 (denied November 2, 2010); petition for mandamus filed in Manila RTC: December 7, 2010; RTC subpoena and subsequent motions: March–April 2011; RTC dismissal of mandamus petition: June 27, 2011.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Applicable constitutional framework: the 1987 Constitution (separation of powers and the Executive’s duty to enforce the laws). Relevant statutory and procedural authorities arising in the record: Rules of Court provisions (Section 2, Rule 110; Sections 9, 10, 17 and 18, Rule 119) and Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act), including Section 10 (state witness criteria) and Section 12 (certification and petition for discharge).
Factual Background
Fifty-seven persons were killed in the Maguindanao massacre; multiple suspects were investigated and charged. Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to a totality of informations filed against him. Kenny Dalandag executed two affidavits admitting participation in the events; he was thereafter admitted into the DOJ Witness Protection Program and listed as a prosecution witness in the amended pre-trial order of the Quezon City RTC. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought, by repeated letters to DOJ officials, the inclusion of Dalandag as an accused in the informations; after denial, petitioner filed a mandamus petition in the RTC to compel respondents to charge Dalandag.
Procedural History in the Lower Courts
DOJ prosecutors issued a joint resolution charging 196 individuals. Petitioner requested that the prosecutors investigate and include Dalandag as an accused; Secretary De Lima denied the request. Petitioner filed a mandamus petition in the Manila RTC; the trial court conducted pretrial proceedings, issued a subpoena to Dalandag which respondents moved to quash, and ultimately dismissed the petition for mandamus. Petitioner appealed by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
(1) Whether public respondents may be compelled by mandamus to investigate and prosecute Kenny Dalandag as an accused in the multiple murder informations given his admissions in sworn declarations and official records; and (2) whether Dalandag’s admission to the Witness Protection Program justifies his exclusion as an accused and non-indictment notwithstanding admissions of participation in planning and execution.
Legal Principles Governing Prosecutorial Discretion and Mandamus
The power to prosecute is vested in the Executive Department and includes broad discretion to determine whom and what to charge; that discretion encompasses the determination of probable cause and whether to file criminal cases. Under the 1987 Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine, courts generally refrain from interfering with preliminary investigations and prosecutorial decisions. Judicial review of prosecutorial action is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion — an exercise that is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic and tantamount to evasion of a positive duty. Mandamus is available to compel performance of a ministerial duty specifically enjoined by law, but it cannot direct how discretion must be exercised or compel a particular substantive outcome.
Legal Standards on Inclusion/Exclusion of Accused and State Witnesses
Section 2, Rule 110 imposes that an information should be filed against all persons who appear responsible, but recognized exceptions exist, notably where a participant becomes a state witness. Two distinct mechanisms allow a participant to become a state witness: (a) judicial discharge under Rule 119 (Sections 9–18), which requires the trial court, upon motion and hearing, to find absolute necessity and corroboration among other criteria before discharging an accused so he may testify; and (b) admission into the DOJ Witness Protection Program under RA 6981 (Section 10), which also lists criteria (grave felony, absolute necessity, no other direct evidence, substantial corroboration, not most guilty, no prior conviction involving moral turpitude). The two procedures are distinct: discharge under Rule 119 is ordered by the trial court and operates as an acquittal once conditions are met, while admission under RA 6981 is granted by the DOJ; admission likewise operates as an acquittal as long as the witness testifies in accordance with his sworn statement, and the DOJ may petition the trial court for discharge if the person was previously charged.
Application to Dalandag’s Status and the Prosecutorial Decision
The record shows Dalandag admitted participation in his affidavits but was admitted into the DOJ Witness Protection Program on August 13, 2010 and listed as a prosecution witness thereafter. Admission into the Witness Protection Program satisfied RA 6981’s requisites as reflected in the DOJ’s determination; under that regime, admission functions as an acquittal that precludes subsequent inclusion in the informations unless the witness fails or ref
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 213455)
The Case (Procedural Posture)
- This is a direct appeal by petition for review on certiorari from the final order issued on June 27, 2011 in Civil Case No. 10-124777 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Manila, which dismissed the petition for mandamus filed by petitioner.
- Petitioner: Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr.
- Respondents: Secretary Leila De Lima, as Secretary of the Department of Justice; CSP Claro Arellano, as Chief State Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service; and the Panel of Prosecutors of the Maguindanao Massacre (noted in different parts of the record as headed by RSP Peter Medalle and by DCSP Richard Fadullon).
- Relief sought below and on appeal: a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to investigate and prosecute Kenny Dalandag as an accused in the informations for multiple murder related to the Maguindanao massacre.
Antecedents / Factual Background
- On November 23, 2009, fifty-seven (57) civilians were massacred in Sitio Masalay, Municipality of Ampatuan, Maguindanao Province.
- Petitioner was among the principal suspects and was then Mayor of Datu Unsay, Maguindanao Province.
- Inquest proceedings were conducted against petitioner on November 26, 2009, at the General Santos (Tambler) Airport Lounge, after which he was flown to Manila and detained at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
- The NBI and Philippine National Police (PNP) charged over a hundred suspects in connection with the Maguindanao massacre.
- By Department Order No. 948, then Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera constituted a Special Panel of Prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation.
- On November 27, 2009, the Department of Justice resolved to file the corresponding informations for murder against petitioner and to issue subpoenas to several persons.
- On December 1, 2009, twenty-five (25) informations for murder were filed against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Region, Cotabato City.
- On December 3, 2009, Secretary Devanadera requested transfer of venue of the trial from Cotabato City to Metro Manila (Quezon City or Manila) to prevent miscarriage of justice; on December 8, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the transfer.
- On December 9, 2009, prior to the venue transfer, the Prosecution filed a manifestation regarding the filing of fifteen (15) additional informations for murder against petitioner in Branch 15, Cotabato City RTC.
- Additional informations were later filed against petitioner in the Quezon City RTC, Branch 211, the new venue pursuant to the Supreme Court resolution.
- The record shows petitioner pleaded not guilty to each of the forty-one (41) informations at arraignments on January 5, 2010; February 3, 2010; and July 28, 2010.
- On February 5, 2010, the Panel of Prosecutors issued a joint resolution charging 196 individuals with multiple murder in relation to the massacre.
- The Panel of Prosecutors partly relied on twin affidavits of Kenny Dalandag, both dated December 7, 2009.
- Kenny Dalandag was admitted into the Department of Justice Witness Protection Program on August 13, 2010.
- On September 7, 2010, the Quezon City RTC issued an amended pre-trial order listing Dalandag as one of the prosecution witnesses.
- On October 14, 2010, petitioner, through counsel, wrote to Secretary Leila De Lima and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon requesting inclusion of Dalandag in the murder informations on the ground that Dalandag had confessed participation in sworn declarations.
- Petitioner reiterated the request on October 22, 2010 and November 2, 2010.
- By letter dated November 2, 2010, Secretary De Lima denied petitioner’s request to include Dalandag as an accused.
- On December 7, 2010, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus in the RTC in Manila (Civil Case No. 10-124777) to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as an accused in the multiple murder cases then pending in the Quezon City RTC.
- The RTC in Manila set a pre-trial conference on January 24, 2011 and subsequently issued a pre-trial order in the mandamus petition.
- Respondents questioned the propriety of conducting a trial-type proceeding in a mandamus action; petitioner opposed.
- Petitioner filed a motion for production of documents on February 15, 2011, which the RTC granted on March 21, 2011 after respondents did not file comments or opposition; respondents sought reconsideration.
- On March 21, 2011, the RTC issued a subpoena to Dalandag, care of the DOJ Witness Protection Program, requiring him to appear and testify on April 4, 2011 in Civil Case No. 10-124777.
- On April 4, 2011, respondents moved to quash the subpoena; petitioner opposed on April 15, 2011. Both parties filed subsequent pleadings and replies.
- On June 27, 2011, the RTC in Manila issued the challenged order dismissing petitioner’s mandamus action; petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether the public respondents may be compelled by mandamus to investigate and prosecute Kenny Dalandag as an accused in the informations for multiple murder in the Maguindanao massacre cases in light of his admitted participation therein in affidavits and official records filed with the prosecutor and the Quezon City RTC.
- Whether Dalandag’s subsequent inclusion in the Witness Protection Program justifies his exclusion as an accused and non-indictment for complicity in the Maguindanao massacre notwithstanding admissions that he took part in the planning and execution thereof.
- The crucial issue: whether respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder despite his admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ.
Ruling (Holding)
- The appeal lacks merit.
- The Supreme Court affirms the RTC, holding that mandamus is not available to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as an accused given the circumstances disclosed in the record.
- The Court orders denial of the petition for review on certiorari, affirms the June 27, 2011 final order of the RTC in Manila in Civil Case No. 10-124777, and orders petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
- Chief Justice Sereno, and Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes concur with the decision.
Legal Principles and Doctrines Applied
- The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department; the power and responsibility of the Executive include the right to prosecute violations of law.
- The right to prosecute vests public prosecutors with broad discretion—what and whom to charge—based on multiple factors best appreciated by the prosecutors.
- Public prosecutors have sole responsibility for determining the amount of evidence sufficient to establish probable cause and the quasi-judicial discretion whether to file criminal cases in court.
- Consistent with separation of powers, the judiciary will generally not interfere with conduct of preliminary investigations; executive determination of sufficient evidence for probable cause is to be exclusively left to the Department of Justice, save for instances of grave abuse of discretion.
- Grave abuse of discretion exists when the public prosecutor exercises discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and gross enough to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
- Mandamus issues to compel performance of a specific legal duty; however, in matters involving judgment and discretion, mandamus may compel only action, not direct the particular manner or result of the exercise of discretion, nor compel retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion.