Scribd
Upload
38 views1 page

13 Facts

This document discusses a case regarding a request to compel prosecutors to charge Kenny Dalandag as an accused in multiple murder cases related to the Maguindanao massacre. Dalandag had confessed to participating in the massacre in sworn declarations but was admitted to the DOJ Witness Protection Program. The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel charging Dalandag as an accused, but the trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court held that mandamus could compel a public official to take action but not direct the manner in which discretionary powers are exercised. As prosecutorial discretion involves judgment calls, mandamus could not compel the Secretary of Justice to grant or deny the request to charge Dalandag.

Uploaded by

Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
38 views1 page

13 Facts

This document discusses a case regarding a request to compel prosecutors to charge Kenny Dalandag as an accused in multiple murder cases related to the Maguindanao massacre. Dalandag had confessed to participating in the massacre in sworn declarations but was admitted to the DOJ Witness Protection Program. The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel charging Dalandag as an accused, but the trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court held that mandamus could compel a public official to take action but not direct the manner in which discretionary powers are exercised. As prosecutorial discretion involves judgment calls, mandamus could not compel the Secretary of Justice to grant or deny the request to charge Dalandag.

Uploaded by

Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

13

FACTS:
In the joint resolution issued on February 5, 2010, the Panel of Prosecutors charged 196 individuals
with multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre. One Kenny Dalandag, was admitted
into the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ and was later on listed as one of the prosecution
witness. On October 14, 2010, petitioner, through counsel request the inclusion of Dalandag in the
information for murder considering that Dalandag had already confessed his participation in the
massacre through his two sworn declarations. Petitioner reiterated the request twice more on
October 22, 201019 and November 2, 2010. But Secretary De Lima denied petitioner’s request.
Accordingly, on December 7, 2010, petitioner brought a petition for mandamus in the RTC in Manila
seeking to compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in the various murder cases
undergoing trial in the QC RTC. The RTC in Manila set a pre-trial conference and issued a pre-trial
order. The respondents questioned the propriety of the conduct of a trial in a proceeding for
mandamus. Petitioner opposed.
On June 27, 2011,33 the RTC of Manila issued the assailed order in Civil Case No. 10-124777
dismissing the petition for mandamus. Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:
Whether respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused
for multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite his admission to the Witness
Protection Program of the DOJ.

HELD:
No. The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the Government whose
principal power and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary
component of the power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to
prosecute vests the public prosecutors with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of what and
whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors that are best
appreciated by the public prosecutors.
In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in
order to compel respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it cannot
be used to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised, 48or to compel the
retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion. 49
As such, respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the letter-request of petitioner,
but may not be compelled to act in a certain way such as to grant or deny such letter-request.

You might also like