PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DATU AKMAD "TATO" AMPATUAN, SR., RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 258710
- Promulgated: 2025-01-27
- Ponente: ROSARIO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Datu Akmad "Tato" Ampatuan, Sr. (Datu Akmad) was indicted for 58 counts of murder in connection with the 2009 Maguindanao massacre. The prosecution alleged that Datu Akmad was part of a conspiracy to commit murder, citing his attendance at meetings where the plot was discussed and his verbal expressions of support. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in a consolidated partial decision, acquitted Datu Akmad, finding that he had prior knowledge of the murder plot but did not perform any overt act in furtherance of it, and was not present during its execution. The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the errors raised pertained to the merits of the RTC decision and were improper in a certiorari petition. It also found that the RTC's ruling was in accord with evidence and jurisprudence on conspiracy, maintaining that Datu Akmad's mere presence and acquiescence, without an overt act, did not make him a conspirator. The State subsequently filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari. ## Issues 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC's acquittal of Datu Akmad, contending that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in disregarding prosecution evidence establishing his commission of overt acts in furtherance of the conspired plan to kill the victims? 2. Can Datu Akmad be held liable as an accessory for having prior knowledge of the plan, doing nothing to prevent its execution, and failing to report the massacre? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court **DENIED** the petition, affirming the CA's decision. The Court generally upholds the finality of an acquittal, which is rooted in the right against double jeopardy, unless there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion can be established by a patent violation of the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence, or gross misapprehension of facts exercised in a capricious, arbitrary, whimsical, or despotic manner. The Court reiterated the importance of performing an **overt act** in cases of conspiracy, as established in **Bahilidad v. People**. An overt act is an outward, physical manifestation performed in furtherance of the conspiratorial plan. Mere presence at the discussion of a conspiracy, or even approval of it, without active participation, is insufficient for conviction. While Datu Akmad's statements ("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 "debauched and depraved," they were mere expressions of approval or acquiescence and not acts in furtherance of the plot. Unlike Datu Zaldy Ampatuan, who offered his guns to carry out the plot, Datu Akmad did not perform any act that directly or indirectly facilitated the crime's progress. His approval was not shown to be indispensable to the execution of the plan. The State's arguments regarding Datu Akmad's moral ascendancy as OIC Vice Governor and nephew/son-in-law of Datu Andal, Sr. were not sufficiently proven to have moved other conspirators to execute the plan. The Court cannot rely on mere presumptions of moral ascendancy. Regarding the involvement of Talembo "Tammy" Masukat, whom the State alleged was Datu Akmad's man and participated in the killings, the Court found no evidence that Datu Akmad offered Talembo's services or that Talembo acted under Datu Akmad's specific instruction to carry out the plot. Talembo, as a CVO commander, could have received directives from other "bosses," and reliance on mere speculation or conjecture is not permissible. Even if the RTC erred in finding that Datu Akmad did not "cling" to the agreed plot due to his attendance at a medical mission, "clinging" is not an overt act; it merely signifies adherence, approval, or acquiescence, which the Court…
Keywords
Rule 45 Rules of Court, Article 20 Revised Penal Code, double jeopardy, finality-of-acquittal rule, Maguindanao massacre, murder, conspiracy, overt act, acquiescence, evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, treachery, cruelty, grave abuse of discretion, certiorari, questions of law, error of judgment, moral ascendancy, reasonable doubt, proximate cause