G.R. No. 197291 April 3, 2013 AMPATUAN JR. vs. SEC. LEILA DE LIMA

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.

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