The Supreme Court has junked the appeal of former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan to be released on bail and instead sustained the ruling of Quezon City Regional Trial Court denying his plea for temporary liberty.
In a six-page resolution, the SC’s First Division upheld the Sept. 15, 2015 Joint Order of the Quezon City RTC, Branch 221 denying Ampatuan’s bail petition and the Court of Appeals’ decision dated April 18, 2018 dismissing Ampatuan’s petition for lack of merit.
“After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the petition for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution of the CA,” the SC ruled.
“The Court denies the petition for lack of merit.”
On Sept. 15, 2015, the QCRTC Branch 221 denied Ampatuan’s bail petition after finding that there is strong evidence on record that in the purported gatherings, petitioner joined the various discussions regarding the alleged plan to commit crimes by his presence thereat, and by his constant suggestion to make their plans effective.
The RTC sided with the government prosecutors opposing his bail petition by presenting around 300 pieces of exhibits and testimonies.
The evidence include sworn statements of various witnesses including then Maguindanao Governor Esmael Mangudadatu, former Ampatuan vice mayor Rasul Sangki, accused-turned-state witnesses Sukarno Badal and Esmael Canapia, and eyewitnesses Noh Akil, Lakmodin Saliao, and Esmail Amil Enog.
Other evidence include medico-legal reports, autopsy pictures, anatomical sketches of the cadavers done based on the description of the witnesses records from telecommunications companies.
This prompted Ampatuan to elevate his case before the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed his appeal for lack of merit.
In affirming the ruling of the RTC, the appellate court held that the alleged absence of any conspiracy relative to the Maguindanao massacre was evidentiary in nature.
The CA declared that the lower court’s decision denying his bail bid “was not unreasonable but, on the contrary, was the result of a thorough assessment of the evidence presented before the trial court. By making a preliminary appraisal of the merits of the case, public respondent did not exercise her discretion in a careless manner.”
Feeling aggrieved, Ampatuan filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
In ruling against Ampatuan, the SC stressed that the former ARMM governor failed to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
According to the high court, if they will take into consideration the evidence presented by Ampatuan and rule on its admissibility and probative value, they would have prematurely ruled on the case.
“By deciding for or against his bail application on the basis of factual issues raised by petitioner, the Court will be prematurely deciding the case beyond the parameters of judicial review at this stage of the proceedings and pre-empt the parties from presenting their respective evidence during trial,” the SC emphasized.
“The Court must defer making a conclusion on this matter since the participation of conspirators, principals, accomplices, and accessories are matters adjudged as a whole at the conclusion of the evidence-in-chief,” the high tribunal said.
Records showed that the Quezon City RTC has already submitted the case of the 58 counts of murder against the Ampatuans for decision.
Out of the 197 accused, 103 went on trial including prime suspect Andal Ampatuan Jr., Zaldy Ampatuan and another of their sibling, Datu Sajid Islam Ampatuan though the later was allowed to post bail by the court in January 2015.
Another accused, former Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan Sr., died in detention last July 17, 2015.
The lower court has heard a total 273 witnesses divided into 166 for the prosecution and 107 for the defense while it also managed to resolve all the 15 sets of formal offer of evidence in connection with the bail applications of 70 accused.
The prosecution panel in this case is composed of 10 public prosecutors and eight private prosecutors, as against the 23 defense lawyers and law firms.
