MANILA, Philippines - Maguindanao Gov. Esmael “Toto†Mangudadatu yesterday testified against former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) governor Zaldy Ampatuan in connection with the killing of two persons in Cotabato City in 1995.
Mangudadatu appeared before Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes as a prosecution witness in the hearing of Ampatuan’s petition for bail for his involvement in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre.
The governor told the court that he saw Ampatuan when he shot the victims at a gas station in Cotabato City.
Ampatuan told him that he shot the victims because they were political enemies.
Mangudadatu said the shooting incident happened in broad daylight.
He admitted that he did not report the incident to authorities for fear of his safety. He said he did not know the identities of the two victims.
Earlier, lead defense counsel Sigfrid Fortun tried to block Mangudadatu’s testimony on Ampatuan’s alleged violent behavior. However, Judge Solis-Reyes allowed Mangudadatu to testify.
More witnesses against Zaldy
Meanwhile, the prosecution panel in the Maguindanao massacre case has insisted on presenting witnesses who would testify on the alleged crimes previously committed by Ampatuan.
The panel led by prosecutor Archimedes Manabat urged the court to deny the motion of the defense and allow the presentation of witnesses Lakandula Bantillan and Abdulbayan Upam during Ampatuan’s bail hearing.
“The proper time to raise any objection to a witness’ testimony is when the witness is called to the stand and the testimony is already being offered in evidence,†said the prosecution.
The defense had earlier asked the court to stop the prosecution from presenting “impertinent witnesses who will testify on prior acts allegedly committed†by the former governor.
“Case law disallows presentation of evidence for prior ‘crimes’ allegedly committed by an accused to prove the commission of the offense subject to an ongoing trial,†the defense said.
But in their opposition, the prosecution said that while evidence on prior crimes is not admissible to prove the commission of the present crime, its presentation “may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like.â€
They noted that the testimonies of Bantillan and Upam will be used for such purposes and were not intended to prove Ampatuan’s participation in the massacre.
The prosecution likewise opposed the allowance of separate trial for Ampatuan’s bail application, noting that the court has earlier denied multiple motions requesting for separate trials filed by other suspects.