Zaldy Ampatuan asks SC to drop him from Maguindanao massacre case
Former ARMM Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan. AFP FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines – Zaldy Ampatuan is asking the Supreme Court to drop him from the charge sheet in the Maguindanao massacre case, citing conflicting affidavits of two witnesses who both claimed seeing him at a meeting where the killings were planned – but at different times.
In a petition for review, the former governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao sought a reversal of the Court of Appeal’s previous rulings upholding his inclusion among the 196 accused, many of whom remain at large.
Zaldy, brother of primary suspect Andal Ampatuan Jr and son of former Maguindanao kingpin Andal Ampatuan Sr, filed his appeal last Friday.
A copy of the petition was forwarded to Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes of Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221, the court hearing the Maguindanao massacre case.
Named respondents in the petition were the heirs of the 57 victims and former Justice Secretary Alberto Agra.
In the petition, Zaldy Ampatuan, through his lawyers Philip Sigfrid Fortun and Albert Lee Angeles, asked the high court to reinstate Agra’s first resolution dated April 2010 which excluded Zaldy from the list of accused.
The petition said Agra’s second resolution found probable cause to indict him for the massacre on the basis of “two conflicting sets of facts.”
These were the affidavits of Kenny Dalandag in 2009 and Abdul Talusan in 2010, who both claimed seeing Zaldy at a meeting on Nov. 22, 2009 at Andal Sr’s house to plot the massacre.
The petition noted that while Dalandag said the meeting started at 7 p.m. with Zaldy present, Talusan claimed that Zaldy arrived at around 11 p.m.
A statement of account from Smart Communications showed that Zaldy was in Davao del Sur at 7 p.m. on that day.
The petition also noted a discrepancy in the time when the meeting ended. Dalandag said it concluded at 2 a.m. of Nov. 23, 2009, but Talusan said it ended an hour earlier.
“The conflicting and contradicting evidence of the public respondents’ affirms the weakness of the case,” the petition said.
It added: “Where two conflicting probabilities arise from the evidence, the one compatible with the presumption of innocence will be adopted.”
The petition pointed out that Talusan surfaced only after Agra’s first resolution excluding Zaldy from the cases.
Aside from being a “johnny-come-lately” witness, Talusan was not present as well during the preliminary investigations at the Department of Justice, the petition said, adding that the justice secretary at the time should have been more careful in admitting Talusan’s affidavit as evidence.
Likewise, the petition also cited four affidavits which do not name or point to Zaldy’s involvement.
It added that in an April 25 hearing, martial law administrator Lieutenant General Raymundo Ferrer “confirmed the existence of intelligence reports which did not show Zaldy’s name or his complicity.”
