DOJ brings Ampatuan rebellion case to Court of Appeals

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) has elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) a rebellion case it earlier filed against members and alleged supporters of the Ampatuan clan after a Quezon City judge repeatedly dismissed the charges.

The DOJ filed a petition for review on Aug. 6 and sought the reversal of Regional Trial Court Branch 77 Judge Vivencio Baclig’s orders – the March 26 order dismissing the charges and the May 28 order that junked a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution.

Among the respondents named in the petition were Baclig and those accused in the rebellion case, including clan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr.

In both orders, Baclig said there was no probable cause to indict those accused of rebellion, citing that there was no public armed uprising for a political purpose existing in the case.

The rebellion case followed the declaration of martial rule in Maguindanao during the crackdown on members of the Ampatuan clan and their alleged supporters after the Nov. 23, 2009 “Maguindanao massacre” in which 57 people were murdered.

“This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court Procedure which seeks to reverse and set aside” Baclig’s orders, the 94-page petition stated.

In elevating the case to the CA, the government claimed Baclig “acted with grave abuse of discretion and exceeded his jurisdiction in conducting a full-blown trial in the determination of probable cause to indict private respondents for rebellion.”

“The extent of the jurisdiction of the trial court in determining the existence of probable cause is limited to the record of the preliminary investigation that was conducted by the investigating prosecutor… In this case, respondent judge ordered the prosecution to present additional witnesses and documentary exhibits which is, of course, allowed under the rule. However, it similarly allowed private respondents, who already waived their rights to a preliminary investigation, to present evidence which undeniably exceeded the permissible limits of his authority under the same rule,” the petition stated.

The DOJ also claimed that in stating that there was no probable cause to indict the accused because the elements of rebellion were not present, the judge exceeded his judicial authority.

It stated that the determination of probable cause “is the prerogative … of the public prosecutors.”

“It is well-established that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits,” the petition cited.

The DOJ also maintained that there was probable cause to charge those earlier accused of rebellion.

“There can be a public armed uprising as an element of the crime of rebellion even if there is absence of an actual clash of arms between the government forces and the rebels,” the petition said.

The DOJ also claimed Baclig’s “grave abusive of discretion continued” when he junked the motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution to reverse the earlier dismissal of the charges.

In the petition for, the DOJ asked that the rebellion charges be reinstated and an arrest warrant be issued for the accused who may have already been released following Baclig’s order. The government also asked for a re-raffle of the rebellion case.