Mendiola lawyer asks SC to reverse court order

The lawyer of carjacking suspect Alfred Mendiola has appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse a Quezon City judge’s order denying his client’s bid to turn into a state witness against the Dominguez gang.

Claiming the court has committed grave abuse of discretion, lawyer Willie Rivera asked the high court to compel Regional Trial Court Branch 215 Judge Ma. Luisa Q. Padilla to drop Mendiola from the charge sheet and admit him as a state witness.

Rivera filed a 22-page petition for certiorari seeking a review of the lower court’s order denying Mendiola’s motion for discharge as witness and for his exclusion from the list of accused.

Rivera also asked the high court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to declare his client as a state witness against the carjack gang.

Mendiola, a member of the Dominguez carjacking syndicate, has identified brothers Raymond and Roger Dominguez as the masterminds in the death of car dealer Venson Evangelista in January.

Because of his alleged firsthand knowledge of the car dealer’s abduction and murder, Mendiola was admitted to the Witness Protection Security and Benefit Program (WPSBP) as a state witness.

Padilla is hearing the car theft with homicide case against the Dominguezes, Jayson Miranda and Mendiola as well pending his discharge as a witness.

In a May 11 order, the Quezon City court denied for the second time his motion to be admitted as a state witness and ordered the prosecution to first present evidence on why Mendiola should be admitted.

Padilla, in ordering hearings to determine if Mendiola is fit to be a state witness, cited Rule 119 which would compel the prosecution to present Mendiola to see how much he knew about the crime.

Rivera, however, pointed out that the WPSBP, which is under the DOJ, had already qualified his client as a state witness as provided by Republic Act 6981 or the Witness Protection Act.

In his petition for review filed July 4, Mendiola’s lawyer argued that the court is mandated to act on the DOJ’s certification of admission by discharging Mendiola as a witness and dropping him from the charge sheet.

“The honorable public respondent-court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction when it failed and refused to discharge Mendiola as a state witness despite the issuance of a certificate of admission,” the pleading read.

Rivera added that Padilla also committed the same when she ordered Mendiola’s arraignment on car theft with homicide raps despite the pending motion to discharge him as state witness which the prosecution and Rivera filed.

The petition maintained that Mendiola’s admission into the WPSBP is “not subject to judicial scrutiny” in the absence of proof that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting him.

“This factual determination must be respected and given great respect by the court,” Rivera said.

He added that RA 6981 mandates the court to respect the DOJ’s prerogative in determining who should be state witnesses.

“The propriety of the admission of Mendiola as a state witness by the DOJ under RA 6981 is not subject to judicial scrutiny. To do so is an incursion into the functions of the executive department,” the petition said.

As a state witness, any accused would be removed from the charge sheet and would also enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution under the same law.

In asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, Rivera said it is merely Padilla’s “ministerial duty” to discharge his client as state witness given the DOJ’s own certification qualifying him as such.

A writ of mandamus is employed to compel a body to do an act which is it bound to do, such as a ministerial function.