THE Court of Appeals has sustained its decision disallowing three of the accused in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre case from being used as state witnesses.
The court’s Special Former Special Thirteenth Division denied the partial motion for reconsideration filed by government prosecutors seeking the reversal of its May 27, 2015 decision.
That decision upheld the ruling of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221, where Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes, who was trying the Maguindanao massacre case, turned down the motion of the Justice department to drop Police Insp. Rex Ariel Diongon, PO1 Rainier Ebus and Mohammad Sangki as accused in the case and turn them into state witnesses.
“The arguments raised by petitioner in its motion have already been judiciously considered before we rendered our judgment, as these were among the issues presented in their petition,” says the court’s resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon Cruz.
“The motion has not raised any new substantial legitimate ground or reason which would warrant a modification, much less a reversal, of our decision.”
The appellate court said the decision whether to admit or not an accused as a state witness relied solely on the judge handling the case.
It said that while the prosecution had control over the witnesses it would present and the application for the discharge of the three accused, the trial court had already acquired jurisdiction over them upon their arraignment.
Besides, the appellate court said, the discharge of the accused to become state witnesses was not necessary.
It agreed with Judge Reyes that their testimonies were substantially the same with witnesses Raul Sangki, Norodin Zailon Mauyag, Akmad Abubakar Esmael and Lakmodin Saliao.
The court also gave credence to the findings of the lower court that there were other prosecution witnesses who could testify on the commission of the crimes and the participation of the other accused mentioned by the three supposed witnesses.
“It must be emphasized that the RTC may till reconsider the discharge of accused Mohammad Sangki, PO1 Ranier Ebus, and P/Insp. Rex Ariel Diongon once all the prosecution’s witnesses have been presented and there is absolute necessity for the testimonies of the aforementioned accuse,” the appellate court said.
The court earlier said that the Justice Department should already have excluded the three from its amended list of respondents if it really intended to discharge them as witnesses since it had the authority to do so under Republic Act 6981.
