Lawyers in massacre trial ‘at odds’ over court proceedings

MANILA, Philippines - Two lawyers representing some of the victims in the Maguindanao massacre have revealed a supposed rift between public and private prosecutors handling the landmark case.

Lawyers Nena Santos and Prima Quinsayas said in a press conference in Quezon City on Thursday that government lawyers have kept them out of the loop of the proceedings as early as 2013.

For instance, Quinsayas said she only learned of the decision to drop backhoe driver Bong Andal from the list of possible witnesses through an article released in The Philippine STAR.

The two lawyers – as well as private prosecutor Gemma Oquendo – are opposing the move of the public prosecutors to end the presentation of evidence-in-chief against suspect Andal Ampatuan Jr. and 27 others.

Oquendo, in a statement, said the private prosecutors were not consulted with the decision to rest the case against some of the suspects. Her sister and father were among those who died in the Nov. 23, 2009 massacre.

“We were not involved in the decision-making; we were merely informed about it,” she said.

Another private prosecutor, however, disputed the claims of Santos and Quinsayas that all private prosecutors were being left out of the proceedings.

“There’s no conflict between the public and private prosecutors in the Ampatuan massacre case. The conflict is between (Santos and Quinsayas) and everyone else,” University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque said in a statement.

Roque, through the Center for International Law (CenterLaw), represents some of the media victims in the massacre.

To end or not to end?

The issue of the supposed rift between the prosecution panel revolves on the decision of the government lawyers to end the presentation of evidence-in-chief against Ampatuan and 27 others.

In an 11-page manifestation dated February 28, the panel said it is ready to rest the case against Ampatuan, Chief Inspector Sukarno Dicay, Moktar Daud, Zakaria Akil aka Quago Akil, Manny Ampatuan, Misuari Ampatuan, Police Officer 3 Gibrael Alano, Senior Police Officer 2 Badawi Bakal and Mohamad Balading.

They also ended presenting evidence against PO3 Ricky Balanueco, Police Officer 1 Michael Macarongon, Senior Police Officer 1 Samad Maguindara, Police Officer 1 Abdulbayan Mundas, Police Officer 1 Badjun Panegas, Police Officer 1 Amir Solaiman, Police Officer 1 Datu Jerry Utto, Armando Ambalgan and Mohades Ampatuan.

Also included in the motion were Salik Bangkulat, Macton Bilungan, Maot Dumla, Nasser Esmael aka Nassrudin Esmael, Edres Kasan, Nasser Talib, Salipad Tampogao aka Tato Sampogao, Supt. Abusama Maguid, Ibrahim Kamal Tatak aka Thong Guiamano, and Rakin Kenog aka Rakim Amil.

The manifestation was filed even as the court has yet to rule on the bail petition of the 23 suspects named in the manifestation.

Court records show that only Bakal, Amil, Kasan, Akil, and Manny Ampatuan do not have bail petitions among those in the list.

Quinsayas and Santos claimed that resting the evidence-in-chief before the court rules on the bail petitions is “unprocedural.” They said there are other witnesses who have to be presented after the ruling on the bail petition.

Court staff said the defense could start presenting their rebuttal once the court issues a ruling on the formal offer of evidence of the prosecution as regards the bail petition of the suspects.

The two private lawyers urged the government lawyers not to offer the evidence-in-chief without at least hearing the rebuttal of the defense counsels on the bail petition.

They said a premature filing of the formal offer would rob them the opportunity to present more witnesses in the case. They also said that there are important testimonies that are pending before the Court of Appeals.

Roque, however, said they could not join Santos and Quinsayas in their objection as they are the ones who are pushing for a partial ruling on the case.

In an earlier statement, the UP professor said that with the big panel involved in the trial, “it is to be expected that there will be differences in opinions, theories and strategies.”

“We would like to assure the public that whatever issues there may be within the panel, everyone’s goal is the same: to ensure the conviction of those accused of murdering 58 people,” he added.

Private Prosecutor Gilbert Andres, also a member of Centerlaw, added that all members of the prosecution panel are doing everything to get a conviction in the case.

“We enjoin other private prosecutors to submit their constructive suggestions on how to hasten the proceedings. We cannot afford to have a third change of panels. We welcome the decision to rest the case as this means that we can even have an early verdict against one of the principal accused – Andal Ampatuan, Jr.,” he added.

Meeting with Baraan

Meanwhile, Santos and Quinsayas said they also learned of a supposed meeting between defense lawyer Sigfrid Fortun and Justice undersecretary Francisco Baraan sometime in late 2012 or early 2013.

They said they only learned of the supposed meeting from other sources.

But in a text message to The STAR, Fortun said “it was about a land case in Cavite involving my family, not about the Maguindanao massacre.”

“It was a request for an opinion from the DOJ. Baraan could not help me as he was not involved in it,” said Fortun.