MANILA, Philippines—The Center for International Law led by lawyer Harry Roque backed the move of the government prosecutors to end the presentation of evidence against Andal Ampatuan Jr. and 27 others charged in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre, but the Department of Justice has yet to issue a final decision on the matter.
Atty. Harry Roque Jr. INQUIRER file photo
The private CenterLaw, which represents 15 of 58 heirs of people killed in the Nov. 23, 2009, massacre, expressed support for the prosecution’s decision on March 4 to rest the case against the 28 accused after four years of court presentations.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, however, had disclosed that Maguindanao Gov. Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu’s lawyer, Nena Santos, had objected to the resting of the case against Ampatuan.
Differences of opinion
Mangudadatu’s wife was among those killed. The massacre happened when the victims were on their way to file his certificate of candidacy back then.
The Department of Justice has yet to decide on the matter following Santos’ objection.
In a statement posted on Roque’s blog, CenterLaw said it was expected that there would be differences of opinion, theories and strategies given the number of lawyers on the prosecution panel. Roque revealed that the public and private prosecutors met in January to discuss the resting of the case against some of the accused.
Roque made the assurance that “everyone’s goal is the same—to ensure the conviction of those accused of murdering 58 people.”
Lawyer Gilbert Andres, also a member of CenterLaw, said all the prosecutors were doing their best to secure a conviction.
Constructive suggestions
“We enjoin other private prosecutors to submit their constructive suggestions on how to hasten the proceedings. We cannot afford to have a third change of panel. We welcome the decision to rest the case as this means that we can even have an early verdict against principal accused Andal Jr.,” Andres said.
Defense lawyers earlier accused the prosecution of delaying the court proceedings, citing instances when the prosecution asked for the suspension or cancellation of hearings.
Lawyer Philip Sigfrid Fortun said the prosecution on 114 occasions moved for a continuance because they had no witnesses or substitute witnesses to call.
“The prosecution’s current posture in disavowing fault for the delay in the completion of trial in these cases four years after they started their presentation is unacceptable,” the defense said in a 12-page counter-manifestation.
Miscommunication with witnesses
The defense also noted that at times the prosecution moved for a suspension due to miscommunication with their witnesses.
“It is also important to note that a great number of the hearing dates were devoted to private complainants’ claim for damages and presentation of witnesses whose testimonies could simply be stipulated on,” the pleading read.
The defense was reacting to the prosecution’s manifestation that it was ready to rest its case against Andal Ampatuan Jr. and 27 other accused.
In a March 4 pleading, the prosecutors said they were unfairly accused of delaying the proceedings since they were prevented from presenting their witnesses by pending motions by the defense.
RELATED STORIES
De Lima says gov’t not yet resting case in Maguindanao massacre trial
Governor sees investors in site of slays
Ampatuan Sr. son’s bid to be excluded from massacre case denied