Court of Appeals junks contempt raps vs De Lima
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima
Andal Ampatuan Jr., who, along with other family members, is standing trial for the ghastly slaughter of 58 persons in Maguindanao in 2009, has lost yet another legal battle.
The Court of Appeals has thrown out his motion to hold Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and other state prosecutors in contempt of court for the continued detention in Camp Crame of four policemen and two militiamen tagged in the killings.
In junking Ampatuan’s petition, the appellate court stressed that the right of an accused as enshrined in the Constitution was more important than the right of the government to prosecute.
It said Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes did not err when she dismissed Ampatuan’s petition to cite De Lima et al. for indirect contempt for disobeying Reyes’ order to transfer the six suspects from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center to a regular jail facility in Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City.
Suspects’ safety
“The reason for the continued detention of the six detainees at the PNP Custodial Center in Camp Crame was to ensure their safety and security,” the court said in a
17-page decision.
“And contrary to what (Ampatuan) is implying, (Reyes) was duly informed of (De Lima et al.’s) action,” it added.
Associate Justice Angelita Gacutan penned the decision, which was concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal de Leon and Francisco Acosta.
“The right of the six detainees under the Constitution are of greater importance than the right of the State to prosecute,” the court said.
The six—Inspectors Michael Macaraeg and Rex Diongon and Police Officers 1 Rainier Ebus and Pia Kamidon and paramilitary members Esmael Kanapia and Takpan Dilon—were arrested and charged for their alleged participation in the Maguindanao massacre.
State witness
But they eventually turned state witness against the Ampatuans and other principal suspects in the massacre.
The appeals court said the state prosecutors’ failure to comply with the court order was “not willful” and that they did it for “a justifiable reason.”
