The Court of Appeals (CA) has declared final its 2022 decision that denied the plea of detained former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Gov. Datu Zaldy Ampatuan for transfer to a hospital or other medical facility.
Ampatuan started serving his jail term at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City after his conviction for 57 counts of murder by the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre where 57 persons died, 32 of them journalists.
He pleaded the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) for his transfer to a hospital due to “clear and present danger” posed by Covid-19 in his detention cell at the NBP.
When the RTC denied his plea, Ampatuan elevated his case to the CA.
In the July 20, 2022 decision written by Associate Justice Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale, the CA affirmed the July 20, 2020 order issued by RTC Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes, the same trial court magistrate who convicted Ampatuan and 27 other persons of murder in the Maguindanao massacre cases.
The CA said: “In this case, the petition does not expound on how the clear and present danger rule applies to petitioner (Ampatuan), when the issue raised herein neither involves the freedom of expression nor of religion.”
It said that when Ampatuan filed his case, the National Capital Region (NCR) was on general community quarantine (GCQ) which called for temporary measures limiting movement and transportation, regulation of operating industries, and presence of uniformed personnel to enforce community quarantine protocols.
Also, the CA pointed out that more than half of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) under the Bureau of Corrections have been fully vaccinated as of March 14, 2021 and have started receiving booster shots against Covid-19.
“These developments are based on and affirmed by official statements of the government and are also of public knowledge of which judicial notice may be taken,” the CA said.
“And while the Court in the case at bar is called upon to make a determination of whether respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed order, these events and developments have supervened thereby rendering the reliefs prayed for moot,” it stressed.
Ampatuan filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a resolution made public on Tuesday, April 18.
In his motion, Ampatuan told the CA that the Covid-19 infection was not the main ground for his plea to a hospital transfer but his existing diseases that are life threatening since 2011.
He pointed out that the denial of transfer to a hospital was a deprivation of his right to life and health. He reiterated his plea for humanitarian reason.
In denying the motion, the CA said:
“Although petitioner (Ampatuan), in the instant Motion for Reconsideration, avers that the threats of Covid-19 infection during his incarceration in the NBP ‘was not the main ground’ of the petition for certiorari assailing public respondent's (Judge Solis) Order, but due to petitioner's existing medical conditions, his Urgent Motion before public respondent was anchored on the existing Covid-19 situation back in June 2020.
“As discussed in this Court's Decision, the Urgent Motion was filed in June 2020 and public respondent's Order denying the same was issued on July 20, 2020. Since then, significant developments in the management of the Covid-19 situation have occurred, hence, this Court found the petition moot.
“While petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion upon public respondent due to the denial of the Urgent Motion, and therefore showing hostility and arbitrariness, petitioner likewise admits that public respondent was familiar with petitioner's medical condition having previously issued orders regarding his health.
“This is a reiteration of the statements in the petition for certiorari where petitioner himself acknowledged and enumerated the instances when public respondent, from time to time, issued orders allowing him to undergo necessary medical procedures and check-up.
“This, in point of fact, negates hostility and arbitrariness on the part of public respondent.
“Petitioner avers that public respondent's denial of the Urgent Motion suppressed his right to appeal and, in like manner, this Court's Decision amounts to a violation of his right to life and a suppression of his right to appeal. A careful examination of public respondent's Order and this Court's Decision shows that nothing therein prevents petitioner from filing the appropriate remedies under the Rules of Court, i.e., appeal.
“To repeat, with the developments in the Covid-19 situation, this Court finds the reliefs prayed for in the petition for certiorari and the instant
Motion moot. All other issues raised by petitioner in the Motion for Reconsideration are but a mere reiteration of the issues presented in his petition for certiorari, and which were already exhaustively discussed in the Decision.
“Therefore, there exists no cogent reason to reconsider the Decision of this Court. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is Denied. So Ordered.”