Legal options cited to challenge ruling in Maguindanao case
Published Dec 20, 2019 12:00 am
By Rey Panaligan
Government prosecutors and those convicted in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre cases have legal options to challenge the partial consolidated decision handed down last Thursday by Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) Judge Jocelyn A. Solis Reyes.
This handout from the Supreme Court - Public Information Office (SC-PIO) taken and released on December 19, 2019
shows a court employee (R) reading the verdict for the 2009 Maguindanao massacre at the trial venue inside a prison facility in Manila.
(AFP PHOTO / SUPREME COURT - PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (SC-PIO) / MANILA BULLETIN) The mode of appeals from the RTCs to the Court of Appeals (CA) and, eventually to the Supreme Court (SC), is laid down under Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 2(b) of Rule 122 states that appeals “may be taken to the CA or to the SC in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by the RTCs.” Section 6 of Rule 122 states that “an appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from.” “This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel…,” Section 6 of the rule also stated. In the case of those convicted only as accessories in the Maguindanao massacre multiple murder cases, government prosecutors can file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC and, if denied, they can elevate the issue before the CA. They can even raise the issue before the SC if the CA’s ruling is unfavorable. But government prosecutors can no longer appeal the judgment of acquittal since “a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.” Double jeopardy, under Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, is defined as “the constitutional right of the accused against being prosecuted for the same offense, for which he has been either convicted or acquitted.” Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reiterates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In the case of those convicted – either as accessories or as principals -- they can file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC and, if denied, appeal their cases before the CA and later to the SC. Several lawyers of those convicted in the Maguindanao massacre cases have manifested their intention to appeal the ruling of Judge Reyes. Read more: 43 convicted in Maguindanao massacre Even Department of Justice (DOJ) Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadullon said that while the prosecution "was happy with the ruling in the Maguindanao massacre cases," members of the prosecution panel have yet to decide on what legal action they would take in connection with the decision released last Thursday. The 761-page decision handed down by Judge Reyes after almost 10 years of trial was only a partial decision because there are other accused who are still at large. Judge Reyes reiterated the arrest order issued against them. Read more: FULL TEXT: Maguindanao massacre case decision Once arrested or if they opt to surrender, the cases against them will proceed to trial. Pending their arrest or surrender, the cases against them are “archived.” Twenty-eight principal accused in the Maguindanao massacre cases were convicted and each of them sentenced to a maximum of 40 years imprisonment without parole. Fifteen accused were convicted as accessories and each of them sentenced to a maximum of 10 years and eight months in jail. Fifty-three accused were acquitted on reasonable doubt, while three other accused were also acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt. Read more: LIST: Names of convicted and acquitted in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre case
This handout from the Supreme Court - Public Information Office (SC-PIO) taken and released on December 19, 2019shows a court employee (R) reading the verdict for the 2009 Maguindanao massacre at the trial venue inside a prison facility in Manila.
(AFP PHOTO / SUPREME COURT - PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (SC-PIO) / MANILA BULLETIN) The mode of appeals from the RTCs to the Court of Appeals (CA) and, eventually to the Supreme Court (SC), is laid down under Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 2(b) of Rule 122 states that appeals “may be taken to the CA or to the SC in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by the RTCs.” Section 6 of Rule 122 states that “an appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from.” “This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel…,” Section 6 of the rule also stated. In the case of those convicted only as accessories in the Maguindanao massacre multiple murder cases, government prosecutors can file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC and, if denied, they can elevate the issue before the CA. They can even raise the issue before the SC if the CA’s ruling is unfavorable. But government prosecutors can no longer appeal the judgment of acquittal since “a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.” Double jeopardy, under Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, is defined as “the constitutional right of the accused against being prosecuted for the same offense, for which he has been either convicted or acquitted.” Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reiterates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In the case of those convicted – either as accessories or as principals -- they can file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC and, if denied, appeal their cases before the CA and later to the SC. Several lawyers of those convicted in the Maguindanao massacre cases have manifested their intention to appeal the ruling of Judge Reyes. Read more: 43 convicted in Maguindanao massacre Even Department of Justice (DOJ) Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadullon said that while the prosecution "was happy with the ruling in the Maguindanao massacre cases," members of the prosecution panel have yet to decide on what legal action they would take in connection with the decision released last Thursday. The 761-page decision handed down by Judge Reyes after almost 10 years of trial was only a partial decision because there are other accused who are still at large. Judge Reyes reiterated the arrest order issued against them. Read more: FULL TEXT: Maguindanao massacre case decision Once arrested or if they opt to surrender, the cases against them will proceed to trial. Pending their arrest or surrender, the cases against them are “archived.” Twenty-eight principal accused in the Maguindanao massacre cases were convicted and each of them sentenced to a maximum of 40 years imprisonment without parole. Fifteen accused were convicted as accessories and each of them sentenced to a maximum of 10 years and eight months in jail. Fifty-three accused were acquitted on reasonable doubt, while three other accused were also acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt. Read more: LIST: Names of convicted and acquitted in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre case