Ampatuan v. De Lima
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 23, 2009, 57 civilians were massacred in Sitio Masalay, Municipality of Ampatuan, Maguindanao Province. Petitioner, then Mayor of Datu Unsay, Maguindanao Province, was among the principal suspects. Inquest proceedings were conducted, and the NBI and PNP subsequently charged over a hundred individuals for the crime, known as the Maguindanao massacre. The Department of Justice (DOJ) constituted a Special Panel of Prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation. Informations for murder were filed against petitioner, and the venue of the trial was later transferred from Cotabato City to Metro Manila. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to 41 informations for murder. A joint resolution by the Panel of Prosecutors charged 196 individuals with multiple murder, partly relying on the affidavits of Kenny Dalandag. Procedural History: Kenny Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection Program (WPP) of the DOJ on August 13, 2010, and was listed as a prosecution witness in an amended pre-trial order. On October 14, 2010, petitioner requested the Secretary of Justice and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor to include Dalandag as an accused in the murder cases, citing Dalandag's confessed participation. This request was reiterated twice more. However, on November 2, 2010, the Secretary of Justice denied the request. Consequently, on December 7, 2010, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, seeking to compel the respondents to charge Dalandag as an accused. After various motions and proceedings, including a motion to quash a subpoena issued to Dalandag, the RTC of Manila issued an order on June 27, 2011, dismissing the petition for mandamus. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising two issues: (1) whether public respondents could be compelled by mandamus to investigate and prosecute Kenny Dalandag as an accused despite his admitted participation and inclusion in the WPP; and (2) whether Dalandag's subsequent inclusion in the WPP justified his exclusion as an accused and non-indictment despite his admissions. The core issue presented to the Court was whether respondents could be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre, despite his admission to the WPP. Petitioner argued that mandamus was appropriate to compel the prosecution to include Dalandag, who had confessed his participation, as an accused.
Issue(s)
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 thereat in affidavits and official records filed with the Prosecutor and the QC RTC. Whether the subsequent inclusion of Kenny Dalandag in the Witness Protection Program justifies exclusion as an accused and his non-indictment for his complicity in the Maguindanao massacre notwithstanding admissions made that he took part in its planning and execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the petition for mandamus, and ordered petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of compelling prosecution via mandamus: The prosecution of crimes is an executive function, vesting public prosecutors with broad discretion on what and whom to charge, based on various factors. Mandamus cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised. While the Secretary of Justice can be compelled to act on a request, they cannot be compelled to act in a specific way, such as granting or denying it. Since the Secretary of Justice had already denied the request, mandamus was no longer available as a recourse. The Court reiterated that judicial review of preliminary investigations is allowed only in cases of grave abuse of discretion, which was not shown here. On the issue of the inclusion of Kenny Dalandag as an accused: The exclusion of Dalandag as an accused did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, requiring all responsible persons to be charged, has exceptions, such as when a participant becomes a state witness. Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection Program (WPP) under Republic Act No. 6981. Admission into the WPP, when all conditions are met, operates as an acquittal and prevents subsequent indictment, unless the witness fails or refuses to testify. The conditions for admission into the WPP, such as absolute necessity of testimony, lack of other direct evidence, substantial corroboration, and not being the most guilty, were deemed met in Dalandag's case. His admission into the WPP, granted by the DOJ, provided him immunity, and he could no longer be charged for his participation in the massacre.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus may compel the Secretary of Justice to act on a request to include a person in an information, but cannot compel the Secretary to act in a specific way (i.e., to grant or deny the request). The admission of a participant in a crime into the Witness Protection Program operates as an acquittal and prevents their subsequent indictment, unless they fail or refuse to testify.