CA orders reinstatement of Salapuddin as respondent in Batasan blast

MANILA, Philippines – Former Basilan congressman Gerry Salapuddin was ordered re-included in the list of respondents in the Nov. 13, 2007 blast at the Batasan complex that killed six persons, including Basilan Rep. Wahab Akbar.

In its 25-page decision penned by Associate Justice Martin Villarama, the CA’s Third Division granted the petition filed by Akbar’s widow, Jum Akbar, to annul and set aside the resolution of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez. The Department of Justice (DOJ) resolution dropped Salapuddin as a respondent in the case.

The CA found merit in the supplemental findings of the DOJ’s preliminary investigation, which found probable cause against Salapuddin based on the sworn statements by four other suspects who linked him to the blast.

“The determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation or reinvestigation is recognized as an executive function exclusively of the prosecutor. Thus, the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with discretion in the discharge of this function,” the CA said.

Records showed that the DOJ prosecution panel led by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño issued its resolution and concluded that the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) has sufficiently established probable cause that the blast was the result of a conspiracy and that Salapuddin and other respondents Ikram Indama, Caidar Aunal, Adham Kusain, Hajarun Jamiri, PO1 Bayan Judda, Julhan Kunam and Benjamin Hataman were behind it.

This led to the filing of the case before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC then issued a warrant of arrest against Salapuddin but recalled it pending a decision on the former lawmaker’s possible exclusion from the case by Gonzalez.

In his resolution, after a review of the case, Gonzalez said the prosecution had failed to establish conspiracy in the light of the “serious inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities” in the six sworn statements of Indama.

Indama named Salapuddin as mastermind in his second supplemental affidavit dated Nov. 20, 2007.

Gonzalez said Salapuddin’s guilt as a conspirator may not be inferred merely by his association with the suspects or accused, nor the places and circumstances involved in the commission of the crime.

This prompted Akbar’s widow to file a petition with the CA, alleging that Gonzalez had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he reversed the findings of the investigating panel of prosecutors.

The CA also ruled that the justice secretary had committed grave abuse of discretion in amending the resolution of his prosecutors and ordering the removal of Salapuddin from the information filed at the lower court.

“The Secretary of Justice, in hastily ruling out a conspiracy with respect to Salapuddin by underscoring the investigating prosecutors’ recognition that so far evidence shows he did not take active part in the planning of the crime, committed grave abuse of discretion for the nature or degree of his involvement or participation is yet to be established by the prosecution at the trial,” the CA ruled.

The CA also noted that the conclusions of the DOJ chief are contrary to established precedents and are belied by the records of the case.

According to the CA, the investigating prosecutors had also rejected allegations of torture and intimidation made by Aunal, Kusain and Jamiri, considering that the medical certificates issued by the PNP medico-legal officers contradicted the medical certificate issued by a private physician.

“It was thus grave error on the part of the Secretary of Justice to rely on the retractions made by Aunal, Kusain and Jamiri notwithstanding that their claim of torture or coercion is contradicted by the evidence on record showing the voluntariness of their confessions,” the CA said.

The appellate court also said that any objection as to the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions should be made during the trial and not during preliminary investigation.