Case Summary and Outcome

In December 2019, the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region Branch 221, Quezon City of the Philippines, convicted Andal Ampatuan Jr., his brother Zaldy Ampatuan and twenty-six other accomplices, including senior police officers, for the mass murder of 58 persons, including 32 journalists. This incident is also known as the Maguindanao massacre. They were sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of ‘Reclusion Perpetua without Parole’ i.e. jail-time upto 40 years without parole. The principal accused were also directed to pay damages to the heirs of the victims. The 32 journalists killed were part of the convoy of 58 people, who were on their way to file the certificate of candidacy on behalf of the opposition candidate running against the politician, Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr “Unsay” (of the powerful Ampatuan clan) for the governorship of Maguindanao. These journalists were reporting on the event. The Court held  that the killings qualified as murder, since it satisfied the first and fifth provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which provided that a person would be guilty of murder, when the killing of another is committed “(1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity” and “(5) With evident premeditation.” With respect to damages, the Court reasoned that since the deaths were caused due to crimes committed by the accused, civil indemnity in the form of damages had to be paid. On the other hand, actual damage including the loss of earning capacity had to be determined individually, depending on the evidence presented by each heir of the victims. 

Facts

The November 23, 2009 Maguindanao massacre resulted in the execution of a convoy of 58 persons, including 32 journalists, who were on their way to the office of the Commission on Elections to file the candidacy of Buluan Vice Mayor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu for the post of provincial governor. The 32 journalists were covering this event. Toto was running against Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. “Unsay”, the son of the incumbent governor, Andal Ampatuan, Sr.  The Ampatuans are a powerful warlord clan in Mindanao whose private army comprised overwhelmingly of state-sanctioned paramilitary forces, namely the Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO), Police Auxiliary Unit, Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU), or Special CAFGU Active Auxiliary; including regular members of the police and military, who have been linked to killings, torture, sexual assault, abductions, and other cases of human rights abuses. 

The accused Andal Ampatuan Jr., his brother Zaldy Ampatuan and twenty-six other accomplices, including senior police officers were charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, since the killings satisfied the attendant circumstances of: “(1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; (5) With evident premeditation” [p. 645]. The killings further satisfied the aggravating circumstances provided for in Article 14 of the RPC: “(6) That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense; (8) That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity; (13) That the act be committed with evidence premeditation; (15) That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense; (16) That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)” [p. 646]. 

Decision Overview

Judge Solis-Reyes delivered the judgment for the Court. 

The main issue before the Court was whether the accused had conspired with evident premeditation, treachery, cruelty, and other aggravating circumstances, to kill the 58 victims causing prejudice to their heirs.  

The Prosecution had brought forth 16 direct witnesses.  Witnesses recalled seeing supporters and members of the Ampatuan clan having met several times at the Century Park Hotel to plan the killing of “Toto,” in order to prevent him from filing his Certificate of Candidacy for the post of governor. Witnesses testified seeing heavily armed men in camouflage along with Unsay securing the checkpoints set up in Ampatuan [p. 37, 45, 598]. 

While they were on their way to file Toto’s candidacy papers, the 58 passengers of the convoy were stopped, forced to lie prostrate on the ground and thereafter brought to the Sitio Masalay hills, where the witnesses claimed that Unsay and his men shot the victims using high-powered firearms. Sukarno Badal, commander of the Ampatuan clan’s private army, categorically stated that he saw the brothers Andal Ampatuan Jr. and Zaldy Ampatuan shooting at the victims, having “a contest as to who had the most number of kills” [p. 49]. He further mentioned that when the journalists refused to alight from the vehicle and locked themselves up, they were sprayed with bullets inside their van [p. 41]. Badal recalled that on receiving a call that the soldiers were coming, Unsay and his men prepared to leave the crime site. Before leaving, the operator of a government-owned backhoe was directed by Unsay to bury the corpses and vehicles [p. 54].

The Court stated that the timeline created through these witness accounts proved beyond reasonable doubt that there were meetings prior to November 23, 2009, involving not just members of the Philippines police but also the army, to plan a conspiracy instrumentalized by the Ampatuan family, “to not just prevent, but kill all the persons transporting the candidacy papers of Datu Toto to Shariff Aguak. The method had also been ascertained: numerous men, firearms, checkpoints, Sanggukos and a backhoe would be used to accomplish the murder objective” [p. 624].

The Court then went on to establish classes of accused on the basis of their prior knowledge of the murder plot and their actions at or around the crime site, in order to identify the consequences that would befall these accused. 

The first class of accused comprised of those who not just had prior knowledge of the murder plot but also fired at the victims in the site of crime. They were clearly guilty as “principals” by direct participation. “Unsay” fell within this category. The Court affirmed that on the basis of the testimonials and documentary evidence recorded, the acts of the accused in the first class were deliberate and were committed in order to implement their plan to kill Datu Toto or whoever would file his Certificate of Candidacy. The Witnesses positively and correctly identified the accused. Moreover, they testified to having seen the accused actually participate in the execution of the 58 innocent victims. 

Those who had prior knowledge of the murder plot yet did not shoot the victims at the crime site, but nonetheless performed other acts, fell within the second class of accused, who were also considered to be principals by direct participation. Irrespective of their absence in the crime site, the Court believed that their actions were for the purpose of attainment of the common objective of committing the unlawful act of murder. 

The third class of accused comprised of those who performed no overt act, but had prior knowledge of the murder plot. The fourth class of accused were those who were actual assailants of the innocent victims, but were not part of the planning process and thus had no prior knowledge of the murder plot. Nonetheless, they were likewise guilty as principals by direct participation. This category of accused included those armed men who were identified to have actually fired at the victims. 

The fifth class of accused included those who were identified by the witnesses or were held by the Court to have performed overt acts, while having no prior knowledge of the murder plot. Several police and army officials were charged under this category. The accused claimed that they feared for their lives since firearms were pointed at them, which prevented them from stopping the abduction of the victims. However, the Court was unconvinced. The Court highlighted that police officers were authorized by law to secure public safety and maintain peace and order.  Once the members of the armed Amaptuan clan and private army had left the check-post, the police officers were duty-bound to immediately report the incidents to higher officials so that appropriate actions could have been taken to save the lives of the victims. 

The sixth class of accused included those who were not identified by the witnesses as being in locus criminis i.e they were not present at the site of the crime, and had no prior knowledge of the murder plot. The Court held them to be completely innocent, for there was lack of evidence clearly pointing to the fact that they participated in the killing of the 58 victims. The Court was of the view that the accused in the sixth class must be exonerated for the crimes charged. 

According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,  the accused enlisted above in first, second, fourth and fifth classes were convicted of murder since the killings satisfied the attendant circumstances of: “(1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; (5) With evident premeditation” [p. 645]. 

The killings further satisfied the aggravating circumstances provided for in Article 14 of the RPC: “(6) That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense; (8) That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity; (13) That the act be committed with evidence premeditation; (15) That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense; (16) That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)” [p. 646]. The Court noted that the site of the crime was an uninhabited place, with sparse and scattered cottages at vast distances from each other. Thereby it was established that the inaccessibility and location of the site allowed the perpetrators to hide the execution of the victims from plain sight, thereby aggravating the commission of the crime. 

With respect to payment of civil damages, Article 100 of the RPC provides, “Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable” [p.648]. With respect to damages, the Court reasoned that since the deaths were caused due to crimes committed by the accused, civil indemnity in the form of damages had to be paid. On the other hand, actual damage including the loss of earning capacity had to be determined for each victim depending on the evidence presented by the heirs of the victims.  

In conclusion, the Court convicted Andal Ampatuan Jr., his brother Zaldy Ampatuan and twenty-six other accomplices, including senior police officers, for mass murder of 58 persons, including 32 journalists. They were sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua without Parole, i.e. jail-time upto 40 years without parole. The principal accused were also ordered to pay damages to the heirs of the victims.