The Court of Appeals building in Ermita, Manila. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO/COURT OF APPEALS WEBSITE
MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 not to discharge as witness three accused in the Maguindanao massacre case.
In a 22-page decision made public Wednesday, the appeals court’s Special 13th Division through Associate Justice Melchor Sadang said Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Presiding Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing resolutions dated July 29, 2011 and November 10, 2011, which dismissed the DOJ’s motions for the discharge of Mohammad S. Sangki, PO1 Ranier Ebus, and P/Insp. Rex Ariel Diongon.
“We are not convinced that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to discharge on the ground that there was no absolute necessity for the testimonies of the three accused. The judicial action is neither whimsical nor arbitrary but is anchored on testimonial evidence on record,” the appeals court said.
Judge Reyes dismissed the motion filed by the government panel of prosecutors as she pointed out that there is no absolute necessity to discharge the three accused as state witnesses because their testimonies are merely corroborative.
In taking the case to the appeals court, the government prosecutors said it is within their prerogative how to prosecutor criminal cases and who to present as witnesses.
But the appeals court said Reyes did not abuse her discretion in denying the government’s request.
The court said the admission of the three as state witnesses rests with the trial court since they were included in the amended information filed by the DOJ.
The appeals court added that the three were arraigned and, thus, have been placed under the jurisdiction of the trial court.
“There are no exceptions to the rule. Moreover, because the rule is clear, there is no room for interpretation. Second, the three accused were included in the amended information, hence, their discharge is subject to the discretion of respondent judge,” the decision read.