SC upholds acquittal of Datu Akmad Ampatuan in murder case

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has affirmed the acquittal of Datu Akmad "Tato" Ampatuan Sr., who was indicted for 58 counts of murder in connection with the 2009 Maguindanao massacre.

In a 10-page decision promulgated on January 27, the high court upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), which both found that while Ampatuan had prior knowledge of the murder plot, there was no sufficient evidence of an "overt act" to prove his involvement in a criminal conspiracy.

It could be recalled that Ampatuan was among those accused in the 2009 massacre in Maguindanao, which saw the killings of civilians and media workers, where he was indicted for 58 counts of murder. He had pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Lower courts’ decisions. The RTC found Datu Akmad "not part of the conspiracy to commit murder.”

According to the RTC, while he attended meetings on July 20, November 17, and Nov. 22, 2009, where the murder plot was discussed, and even "expressed his support" for it, the RTC noted his absence during the execution of the crime on November 23, 2009, due to his attendance at a medical mission.

The trial court concluded that this showed he "did not cling to the agreed plot to kill" and that there was "no clear and convincing evidence that will show that accused had committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreed plan."

Consequently, he was acquitted of 57 counts of murder and one additional count, totaling 58 counts, on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The state, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), challenged this acquittal before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

However, the CA dismissed the petition, concurring with the RTC that Datu Akmad's "mere presence in the meetings, even acquiescence to the plan, without an overt act in support of the criminal plot, does not make him liable as a conspirator."

The CA affirmed that the RTC's ruling was "in accord with the evidence on record and prevailing jurisprudence on conspiracy.”

Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court denied the state's petition for review on certiorari, thereby affirming Datu Akmad's acquittal.

The OSG pointed out his position as Officer-In-Charge Vice Governor, his familial ties, his participation and purported encouragement in clan meetings, and the claim that his absence was part of a plan.

The Court reiterated the definition of an "overt act" as an "outward, physical manifestation of the will performed especially by a conspirator" and "an outward act, possibly innocent in itself, done in furtherance of a conspiracy, treason, or criminal attempt.”

Crucially, the high court found that Ampatuan's statements, such as "pakinggan natin si Ama. Okay kami lahat na patayin sila" (Let's listen to Ama. We are all okay with killing them) and "mabuti nga sa mga Mangudadatu na mahilig mag-ambisyon na patayin sila lahat" (It's good for the Mangudadatus who like to be ambitious that they all be killed), were "mere expressions of approval of or acquiescence to the plot and cannot be said to be in furtherance thereof.”

“Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy, but there must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose,” the Court’s decision read.

The high court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove that Datu Akmad exerted "moral ascendancy" over the conspirators to compel them to execute the conspiracy, despite his family position.

Furthermore, the arguments that his absence was part of a plan or that he lent the services of one of his men, Talembo Masukat, were not sufficiently proven to constitute an overt act on his part.

The Supreme Court also addressed the State's contention that Datu Akmad should have been convicted as an accessory for having prior knowledge but doing nothing to prevent the crime.

Citing Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code, the high court said it exempts accessories who are relatives, such as a son-in-law, from criminal liability.

This exemption, however, "by no means signifies his innocence" but acknowledges the compelling nature of blood ties in such situations.

“The law acknowledges that blood ties and the preservation of one's family name compel one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in the article,” the high court said.