Lawyers welcome Arroyo as Ampatuan witness
Lawyers for Maguindanao massacre victims said they were surprised but are “looking forward” to hearing former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s testimony as a defense witness for massacre suspect Zaldy Ampatuan.
Romel Barages, lawyer for some of the massacre victims and executive director of the Center for International Law was reacting to the formal manifestation by one of the Ampatuan lawyers that they intended to present Arroyo, now Pampanga representative, as one of their witnesses.
Gregorio Narvasa, counsel for Andal Ampatuan Sr., had told Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes of the start of the pre-trial conference at the Quezon City trial court on Wednesday that they were putting Arroyo back on their list.
Last year, defense lawyers mulled tapping Arroyo as a witness but later took her off their list.
On her being back on the witness list, Bagares said they were looking forward to seeing her on the witness stand but added that the possible content of her testimony was “nothing new.”
Narvasa had told reporters that Arroyo was expected to testify that Zaldy Ampatuan, the former governor of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao was at the Lakas-Kampi-CMD party in Malacañang when the massacre of 57 people occurred in Ampatuan town.
Her testimony will be “more for RG [regional governor],” referring to Zaldy, Narvasa had added.
Countered Bagares: “As we have been saying from the start, [they] didn’t have to be present at the killings itself.”
Prosecution witnesses, such as Lakmodin Saliao, have testified that Zaldy was present during the planning of the killings, he added.
The pretrial conference for suspects Ampatuan Sr. and others is set to continue on June 15.
Meanwhile, Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr., the primary suspect in the massacre, has submitted a motion for partial reconsideration of the judge’s decision to throw out an indirect contempt charge the suspect filed against private prosecutor Nena Santos.
Regional Trial Court judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon yesterday heard the motion for reconsideration and gave Santos 10 days to reply.
Santos, counsel for the Mangudadatus, was accused of breaching the sub judice rule when in a broadsheet article on July 3, 2010, she was quoted as saying the motive for the ambush of Richard Pestime, the lawyer of a massacre witness, was “to warn the families of the victims and of the witnesses of the November 23 massacre.”
In dismissing the contempt case in April, Villordon said the statement was an opinion that “contains nothing that will in any way impede or affect the merit of the criminal case.”
But Fortun disagreed. He said Santos’ statement was meant to sway the public and the court’s opinion, he argued.
Bagares, on the other hand, said the series of contempt and libel cases being filed against prosecution lawyers were just “harassment meant to distract the prosecution.”
