Title
Ampatuan Jr. vs. De Lima
Case
G.R. No. 197291
Decision Date
Apr 3, 2013
The case involves Ampatuan Jr.'s failed mandamus petition to compel DOJ to charge Kenny Dalandag, a state witness, in the Maguindanao massacre, affirming prosecutorial discretion and WPP protections.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197291)

Background of the Maguindanao Massacre Investigation

On November 23, 2009, fifty-seven civilians were killed in Maguindanao. Inquest proceedings against Ampatuan Jr. commenced on November 26, followed by preliminary investigation by a DOJ Special Panel. By December 1, 2009, 25 informations for murder were filed in Cotabato City, and additional informations were lodged thereafter. Venue was transferred to Quezon City RTC Branch 211 to ensure impartiality.

Procedural History of the Mandamus Petition

Between January and July 2010, Ampatuan Jr. pleaded not guilty to 41 murder informations. On October 14, 2010, he requested DOJ to charge Dalandag as a co-accused based on his affidavits; this request was denied on November 2, 2010. On December 7, 2010, Ampatuan Jr. filed a mandamus petition in RTC Manila seeking to compel respondents to include Dalandag in the informations. The trial court dismissed the petition on June 27, 2011, prompting this appeal.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether public prosecutors can be compelled by mandamus to investigate and charge Kenny Dalandag as an accused despite his admissions in sworn declarations.
  2. Whether Dalandag’s admission into the Witness Protection Program precludes his indictment for complicity in the massacre.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 3 (separation of powers).
Rules of Court:
• Rule 110, Sec. 2 – mandatory joinder of all persons responsible for an offense in the information.
• Rule 119, Sec. 17 – discharge of a co-accused to become a state witness upon meeting specified conditions.
Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act), Secs. 10 and 12 – criteria and effects of admission into the Witness Protection Program.

Prosecutorial Discretion and Mandamus Limitations

  • The power to initiate and pursue criminal charges resides exclusively in the Executive Department via the DOJ and Public Prosecutors.
  • Mandamus may compel the performance of a ministerial act but cannot dictate the exercise of prosecutorial judgment or reverse a discretionary decision.
  • Judicial interference in preliminary investigations is permitted only when there is grave abuse of discretion—arbitrariness, capriciousness, or despotic refusal to perform a duty.

Admission of a State Witness Under Rule 119 and RA 6981

  • Under Rule 119, Sec. 17, a trial court may discharge a co-accused to serve as witness if: absolute necessity, lack of other direct evidence, substantial corroboration, accused not most guilty, and no conviction for moral turpitude.
  • Under RA 6981, Sec. 10, a participant in a crime may be admitted into the Witness Protection Program upon similar conditions; such admission operates as an acquittal and bars further prosecution unless the witness fails to testify.
  • No requirement exists under RA 6981 to first charge the applicant as an accused. The DOJ grants immunity; the trial court discharges the accused upon certification.

Application to Kenny Dalandag

  • Dalandag’s admission into the Witness Protection Program on August 13, 2010 satisfied all statutory criteria, including absolute necessity and corroboration of his testimony.
  • His participation admissions did not preclude state-witness status, provid
  • ...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.