G.R. No. 197291
April 3, 2013
DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR., Petitioner,
vs.
SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the Department of Justice, et.al , Respondents.
vs.
SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the Department of Justice, et.al , Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
NATURE:
This
is a direct appeal by petition for review on certiorari assailing the the final
order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, in Manila,
dismissing petitioner’s petition for mandamus.2
FACTS:
In
the joint resolution issued on February 5, 2010, the Panel of Prosecutors
charged 196 individuals with multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao
massacre. One Kenny Dalandag, was admitted into the Witness
Protection Program of the DOJ and was later on listed as one of the prosecution
witness. On October 14, 2010, petitioner, through counsel request the
inclusion of Dalandag in the information for murder considering that Dalandag
had already confessed his participation in the massacre through his two sworn
declarations. Petitioner reiterated the request twice more on October 22, 201019 and
November 2, 2010. But Secretary De Lima denied petitioner’s request.
Accordingly,
on December 7, 2010, petitioner brought a petition for mandamus in the RTC in
Manila seeking to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in
the various murder cases undergoing trial in the QC RTC. The RTC in Manila set
a pre-trial conference and issued a pre-trial order. The respondents questioned
the propriety of the conduct of a trial in a proceeding for mandamus.
Petitioner opposed.
On
June 27, 2011,33 the
RTC of Manila issued the assailed order in Civil Case No. 10-124777 dismissing
the petition for mandamus. Hence, this appeal by petition for review on
certiorari.
ISSUES:
Whether
respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an
accused for multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite his
admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ.
HELD:
No.
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the
Government whose principal power and responsibility are to see to it that our
laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of the power to execute our
laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests
the public prosecutors with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of what
and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors
that are best appreciated by the public prosecutors.
In
matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be
resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person to take action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the
particular way discretion is to be exercised,48or
to compel the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise
of judgment or discretion.49
As
such, respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the
letter-request of petitioner, but may not be compelled to act in a certain way
such as to grant or deny such letter-request.
FALLO:
Petition
is denied
No comments:
Post a Comment