CA upholds multiple murder raps vs Akmad Ampatuan

(Updated 3:52 p.m.) The Court of Appeals has affirmed a Department of Justice (DOJ) resolution that found probable cause to file multiple murder charges against Datu Akmad "Tato" Ampatuan Sr. for the infamous Maguindano massacre in November 2009. Akmad, former mayor of Mamasapano town in Maguindanao, is the cousin of high profile suspects Andal Ampatuan Jr. and his brother Zaldy, a suspended governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Also implicated in the massacre that left 57 people, including 32 journalists, dead is the Ampatuan clan patriarch, Andal Sr., a former Maguindanao governor. In a 37-page decision promulgated Wednesday afternoon, the appellate court's Sixteenth Division denied Akmad's bid to void the DOJ’s May 5, 2010 resolution finding probable cause to indict him for the carnage. The CA said that the DOJ did not commit a "reversible error" in finding probable cause against Akmad. "Even as this court carefully and deliberately reviewed the records of the case and the documentary evidence of petitioner and private respondents, we find no discretion gravely abused sufficient to overturn public respondent's [DOJ's] finding of probable cause against petitioner [Akmad]," said the ruling. "Petitioner's probable guilt in the commission of the crime has been sufficiently established," it said in asserting that the DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ruled against Akmad’s bid. Associate Justice Francisco Acosta penned the decision, which was concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente Veloso and Angelita Dagcutan. The assailed Agra resolution On May 5 last year, then-Justice Secretary Alberto Agra sustained the filing of charges against Zaldy and Akmad Ampatuan, who separately asked the CA to nullify Agra's resolution. Agra's May 5 resolution became controversial because it was a reversal of his April 16 ruling that cleared the two Ampatuans of involvement in the massacre. In their separate petitions with the CA, Zaldy and Akmad accused Agra of committing grave abuse of discretion for the May 5 resolution, which gave weight to the testimony of witness Abdul Talusan. Zaldy and Akmad argued that Talusan was not introduced as a witness during the preliminary investigation at the DOJ. They also said the department's earlier recommendation to include them in the charge sheet was based on sworn statements of witnesses that included incumbent Maguindano Gov. Esmael Mangudadatu, Nasser Abdul, and Kenny Dalandag. While the CA has already decided on Akmad's petition, Zaldy's remains pending with the appellate court's Eleventh Division. CA ruling on Akmad's plea In its ruling promulgated Wednesday, the CA said there was nothing wrong with the DOJ's admission of Talusan's affidavit. "Talusan's affidavit is not strictly an additional or new evidence as nothing therein contained would have surprised petitioner or would have necessitated an overhaul of petitioner's defense," it said. "In any event, whether or not the petitioner received a copy of Talusan's affidavit and whether he was given the right to submit his counter-affidavit are already moot," it added. The appellate court added that the evidence presented against Akmad established probable cause to hold him for trial. Akmad said that the DOJ was not able to establish prima facie (on its face) evidence against him. The CA struck down this argument and said that the aim of a DOJ preliminary investigation is to establish probable cause against a respondent. "Thus, at this point of the proceedings, petitioner's protest against the alleged lack of prima facie evidence against him is misplaced, if not premature," said the appellate court. The CA then concluded that Agra did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding Akmad for trial for multiple murder. "Whether or not conspiracy exists to hold petitioner guilty of the crime is, again, a matter of defense better aired during trial proper," it said. "To stress, the pieces of evidence and factual circumstances herein considered merely create probable cause against petitioner sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that petitioner is probably guilty thereof," it added. — KBK, GMA News