Ampatuan vs.

De Lima
G.R. No. 197291 April 3, 2003 Bersamin, J.
Rule 110 – Section 2 Created By: Jebel C.
Petitioners Respondents
DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the Department of
Justice, CSP CLARO ARELLANO, as Chief State
Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service, and PANEL OF
PROSECUTORS OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE,
headed by RSP PETER MEDALLE
Recit Ready Summary

This case revolves around the Maguindanao Massacre. Ampatuan, along with 196 individuals, were charged
for murder in the RTC of QC. The charges were based on the 2 affidavit of Dalandag, which was admitted to the
Witness Protection Program. Because of this, Ampatuan wrote a letter to Sec. De Lima requesting Dalandag to
include as one of the accused since he already confessed his involvement in the Massacre. However, this was
denied by Sec. De Lima. Subsequently, Ampatuan filed a writ of mandamus in the RTC of Manila, but this was
eventually dismissed. Hence, this appeal for review on certiorari.

According to the SC, Rule 110, Section 2 of the Rules of Court has an exception. This exception is when a
person becomes a state witness. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mandamus may only be resorted to take action,
but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised or to compel the
retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion

Facts of the Case:

1. This case revolves around the Maguindanao Massacre wherein 57 civillians were massacred. Among the
principal suspect was Datu Ampatuan Jr. Several investigations and inquest proceedings were conducted
that led the DOJ to file informations for murder against Ampatuan and several other persons.

2. Subsequently, the Sec. of Justice Devanadera requested for a change of venue to prevent miscarriage of
justice. Eventually, 41 charges of murder were filed in the RTC of QC against Ampatuan and multiple
murders against 196 individual.

3. It appears that the charges filed were based on the 2 affidavits of Kevin Dalandag, which was admitted into
the Witness Protection Program of DOJ. Because of this, Ampatuan wrote Sec. De Lima requesting her to
include Dalandag to the murder charges since he already admitted that he was involved in the massacre in
his affidavits. However, Sec. De Lima denied his request.

4. Accordingly, Ampatuan filed a petition for mandamus in the RTC of Manila seeking to compel the
respondents to include Dalandag as another accused in the murder charges filed in the RTC of QC.

5. The respondents opposed this and contested the propriety of the proceeding for mandamus. The RTC of
Manila then issued subpoena to Dalandag, which the respondents wanted to quash. Eventually, RTC of
Manila dismissed the petition for mandamus. Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Ruling
1. W/N the respondents can be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge NO
Dalandag as an accused for multiple murders in the Maguindanao massacre despite his
admission to Witness Protection Program?

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the Government whose principal power
and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. The right to prosecute vests the public
prosecutors with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of what and whom to charge. The Court deems it
a sound judicial policy not to interfere with investigation and let the DOJ determine what is sufficient to
establish probable cause UNLESS there is a grave abuse of discretion.
2. The Court in this case noted that there is nothing that suggest that the Panel of Prosecutors committed
grave abuse of discretion in identifying the 196 individuals involved in the Maguindanao Massacre.Section 2,
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which requires that "the complaint or information shall be xxx against all
persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved," albeit a mandatory provision, may be
subject of some exceptions, one of which is when a participant in the commission of a crime becomes
a state witness.

3. There are two ways on how a person can be a state witness (a) by discharge from the criminal case
pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 119 and (b) by applying for admission into the Witness Protection Program of
the DOJ pursuant to RA No. 6981.

4. Under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, the proposed witnesses were discharge by the trial court
if the following conditions complied with, namely: (a) there is absolute necessity for the testimony; (b) there
is no other direct evidence available (c) the testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in
its material points; (d) said accused does not appear to be most guilty; and (e) said accused has not at any
time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

5. On the other hand, RA No. 6981 provides that in order for a person to be qualified in the witness protection
program, the ff must be present: a. the offense is a grave felony; b. there is absolute necessity for his
testimony; c. there is no other direct evidence; d. his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its
material points; e. he does not appear to be most guilty; and f. not convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude.

6. Furthermore, under RA No. 6981, for a person to be a admitted in the Witness Protection Program, there is
no requirement that the person was first charge as one of the accused. It should also be noted that it is
enough that the person is not the most guilty and this is being granted by the DOJ not the trial court. And
since Dalandag’s testimony is absolutely necessary and he does not appear to be the most guilty, his
admission to the Witness Program is valid.

7. On the other hand, mandamus shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station. It is proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tribunal
or officer. In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to
take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised or to
compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion.

8. Thus, Secretary of Justice can be compelled to act on the letter of Ampatuan but may not be compelled to
grant or deny the request made by Ampatuan.
Disposition: The Court denies the petition for review on certiorari.

Separate Opinions
N/A