Fiscals seek dismissal of charges vs massacre state witness

MANILA, Philippines - The prosecutors in the Maguindanao massacre trial have asked the court handling the case to drop the charges against a suspect-turned-state witness for the 58th count of murder.

In a two-page manifestation, the panel of prosecutors said Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes dropped only the 57 counts of murder filed against suspect Esmael Canapia when she allowed him to be a state witness in the case.

“In order to put the records and the proceedings in their proper perspective, the prosecution is adopting the motion to discharge against accused Esmael Canapia filed for the 57 informations, and hereby repleads the same in the 58th case,” read the manifestation.

The prosecutors first asked Solis-Reyes to discharge Canapia as a state witness in June 2012.

This only covered the first 57 murder cases as the Department of Justice (DOJ) only ruled on the indictment of the suspects for the alleged death of photojournalist Reynaldo “Bebot” Momay, the supposed 58th victim, in September 2012.

The remains of Momay, who worked for local newspaper Midland Review, were never found. A team led by a forensic expert from the Commission on Human Rights recovered parts of the photojournalist’s supposed dentures, which was also offered as evidence by the prosecution.

In her complaint, Momay’s daughter Reynafe claimed that her father had called a colleague before the incident and said he was in a van together with other media practitioners.

The DOJ earlier said that even “though Momay’s body was not found at the killing fields located at Brgy. Salman, Ampatuan, Maguindanao, there is sufficient evidence that he was indeed part of the ill-fated convoy.”

In an order dated Feb. 21, Solis-Reyes dropped the charges against Canapia, making him the second suspect to become a state witness next to former Ampatuan political ally Sukarno Badal.

Earlier this month, she affirmed her order when she junked the motion for reconsideration filed by 10 suspects, who claimed that Canapia is among the most guilty in the case and that his statements were non-essential.

“This court has exhaustively listed several cases explaining that once an applicant for a state witness makes a distinctive identification of an accused, his testimony is considered an absolutely necessary, there being no direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed as regards the uniquely identified participant,” she added.