Supreme Court Upholds Datu Akmad Ampatuan Acquittal in Maguindanao Case
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the acquittal of Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan in the high-profile 2009 Maguindanao massacre case. This decision confirms that despite his involvement in clan meetings, Datu Akmad was not proven to have conspired in the murders, sources reported.
In a ruling dated January 27 but released only recently, the court emphasized that Datu Akmad’s statements, though deplorable, were mere expressions of approval rather than actions that advanced the murder plot. The exact four-word keyphrase played a critical role in the court’s evaluation of his liability.
Background of the Case and Charges
Datu Akmad, son-in-law of Ampatuan patriarch Datu Andal Sr., was charged with 58 counts of murder linked to the massacre. The case gained national attention due to the brutal nature of the crime and the prominent figures involved. Local leaders noted that the trial courts had previously acquitted him, citing a lack of overt acts linking him directly to the killings.
The Quezon City Regional Trial Court and later the Court of Appeals both ruled that although Datu Akmad attended meetings where the murder plan was discussed, he was absent during its execution. They concluded that his support did not amount to active participation in the conspiracy.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning on Acquittal
The Supreme Court’s First Division, led by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, clarified that approval alone does not prove conspiracy. “Unless such approval be so indispensable that without it, the plan would not be set in motion or carried out, it is not enough to convict,” the court stated, highlighting that Datu Akmad’s endorsement was not crucial to the plot’s execution.
Officials reported that the court distinguished between mere acquiescence and overt acts furthering a conspiracy. Datu Akmad’s remarks, including “Pakinggan natin si Ama. Okay kami lahat na patayin sila” and “mabuti nga sa mga Mangudadatu na mahilig mag-ambisyon na patayin sila lahat,” were seen as expressions of agreement but not active steps toward the crime.
State’s Arguments and Court’s Response
The State challenged the acquittal, arguing that Datu Akmad’s position as officer-in-charge vice governor of Maguindanao and his participation in clan meetings demonstrated his involvement. They also cited his lending of a trusted aide, Talembo Masukat, who allegedly took part in the massacre, as evidence of complicity.
Community members said the prosecution likened his absence during the killings to a deliberate tactic to avoid suspicion. They urged that at minimum, Datu Akmad should have been convicted as an accessory due to his prior knowledge and failure to prevent the crime.
However, the Supreme Court rejected these claims, referring to a 2003 precedent that acquittal hinges on the absence of proof of overt acts. Unlike Datu Zaldy Ampatuan, who was convicted for lending firearms to execute the plot, Datu Akmad’s involvement lacked such tangible actions.
Legal Nuances and Family Ties
The court also noted legal provisions exempting Datu Akmad from liability as an accessory due to his close family ties with the principal accused. Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code recognizes that relatives may conceal crimes committed by family members, a factor the court considered in its decision.
“This by no means signifies his innocence,” the ruling clarified, “but acknowledges the role of blood relations in complicity.” This nuanced understanding shaped the court’s final judgment.
Conclusion and Implications
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of concrete evidence in conspiracy cases. Mere approval or verbal support, without active participation or overt acts, does not meet the threshold for conviction. Officials emphasized that this decision could influence how future cases involving political clans and mass violence are prosecuted.
For more news and updates on the 2009 Maguindanao massacre, visit Filipinokami.com.
