The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the choice of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) permitting a son of former Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr., who is among the respondents within the Maguindanao bloodbath case, to be launched on bail.
In a four-page decision penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurred by Associate Justices Ricardo Rosario and Edwin Sorongon, the CA 16th Division denied authorities prosecutors’ plea searching for the reversal of Quezon RTC Branch 221 Presiding Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes resolution granting Datu Sajid Islam Ampatuan.
Datu Sajid is among the principal suspects within the Maguindanao bloodbath, the place 58 folks had been killed together with 32 journalists in November 2009.
Datu Sajid, son of Ampatuan Sr., was granted bail final January 9, 2015.
The appellate courtroom didn’t give credence to the declare of the petitioners that its January 30, 2017 resolution needs to be reversed following the choice of the trial courtroom to discharge Police Insp. Rex Ariel Diongon as state witness and to confess his testimony.
Government prosecutors requested the CA to offer weight to the testimony of Diongon which was beforehand disregarded by the trial curt, to show that the proof towards Ampatuan is robust sufficient to disclaim his software for bail.
The petitioners stated that this “supervening event” ought to warrant the reversal of the CA’s resolution favoring Ampatuan.
The CA famous that the petitioners did not submit proof that such order was issued by the Court.
Even assuming that such order was issued by the trial courtroom, the CA stated it will haven’t any relevance to this current case contemplating that its energy of overview is restricted solely to a dedication whether or not or not the trial courtroom issued the stated order in grave abuse of its discretion amounting to lack or in extra of jurisdiction.
“Indeed, our power or review does not include encroaching upon the lower court’s prerogative of determining the witnesses whose testimonies are relevant to the application of bail as well as the power of probative weight to said witnesses’ testimonies in the absence of any showing that the exercise of such discretion was gravely abused by the trial court – an imputation we find wanting in the instant case,” the CA dominated.
Aside from the stated supervening occasion, the CA described the opposite arguments as mere rehash of the arguments raised in its principal petition which it already thought-about in developing with its earlier resolution.
“In other words, these arguments are not issues which are novel or which the Court overlooked to pass upon. Hence, the same do not need further judicial determination,” it added. (Philippine News Agency)