The verdict

The court decision in the 10-year-old Maguindanao massacre case is 761 pages long, but is clear and straightforward, pertinent, and instructive.

Though I skipped certain portions I considered subsidiary to the main points, it still took me from early evening of Thursday to three o’ clock in the morning the next day to finish reading the decision handed down by the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City through presiding judge Jocelyn A. Solis-Reyes. A copy of the decision is available at the Supreme Court website.

People of the Philippines versus Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr. Et Al. is dubbed as the case of the century because of the number of people who were killed in a single incident (58 civilians including 34 journalists), the manner that they were killed, and the brazenness and impunity with which the powerful perpetrators broke the law and attempted to exploit the gaps in our justice system.

Found guilty as principals for 57 counts of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua without parole for each count were the Ampatuan brothers, namely Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan and Datu Zaldy “Puti” Ampatuan.

Other prominent Ampatuans who were adjudged guilty as principals and received similar sentences were Datu Anwar Sajid Ampatuan, Datu Anwar Ampatuan, Jr., and Datu Anwar Ampatuan Sr. Also convicted as principals to the conspiracy were 25 others including five police officers. Convicted as accessories to the crime and sentenced to six to 10 years imprisonment were 14 police officers and the operator of the backhoe which was used to bury the victims of the massacre.

Acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt were 53 accused including Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan and Datu Sajid Islam Ampatuan. The rest were policemen who were not identified to be present at the place of the crime. Likewise, three police officers were also acquitted for lack of evidence.

Eight of the accused including the Ampatuan patriarch, Datu Andal Ampatuan Sr., died while in detention, while a few others were earlier dropped from the charges either due to mistaken identity or on grounds of insufficient evidence. Over 70 accused are still at large, that’s why the decision was dubbed a “consolidated partial decision” because the case will continue against them as soon as they are caught by the long arm of the law.

This case is really an enormous challenge for the brave woman judge who took it, considering that public expectations are high that most of those charged for the massacre of 58 people will be convicted.

But in the court of law, the determination of facts and their legal application are based on the rules of evidence carefully crafted from years of human experience in maintaining social order and justice – that of ensuring that the guilty are punished while the innocent are spared amid the cry of public opinion.

With the voluminous case documents and countless hours of testimony from several witnesses, how did the court arrive at a clear and instructive verdict?

The court narrowed down the accused to six classifications. The first class of accused – those who had prior knowledge of the murder plot and fired at the victims in Sitio Masalay – were adjudged guilty as principals by direct participation.

The second class of accused – those who had prior knowledge of the murder plot and performed other acts outside of the place of the crime in Sitio Masalay – were also adjudged guilty as principals by direct participation. Though they were not at the scene of the crime, “their actuations had for their purpose the attainment of their common objective of committing the unlawful act,” said the court.

The third class of accused – those who had prior knowledge of the murder plot but did not at all perform any overt act – were spared. They include Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan and Datu Sajid Islam Ampatuan.

The fourth class of accused – those who had no prior knowledge of the murder plot but were actual assailants in Sitio Masalay – were likewise adjudged guilty as principals by direct participation. The fifth class of accused – those who had no prior knowledge of the murder plot but were still identified or had performed overt acts – were adjudged guilty as accessories to the crime.

The sixth class of accused – those who had no prior knowledge of the murder plot and were not at all identified in the place of the crime – are totally innocent of these crimes, the court ruled. [email protected]