Second of four parts
- Criminal Justice System Investigation, Prosecution and Trial
The Philippine criminal justice system for the investigation, prosecution and trial of criminal offenses and which processes involve mainly the police, the prosecution service and the courts. There are two general levels of investigation: police investigation, and preliminary investigation by the prosecution service to determine probable cause for bringing cases to court for trial and judgment. In the case of the Masbate landmining incident of 6 June 2021, these two levels of investigation were conducted speedily enough. As mentioned earlier, the Masbate City Police Station (MCPS) issued its Investigation Report on June 19, 2021 and filed a total of seven (7) complaints against 24 respondents with the Masbate City Prosecution Office (MCPO) on June 21, 2021. In turn, the MCPO, after also hearing the three Suson sisters respondents, issued its preliminary investigation Joint Resolution on July 30, 2021, resulting in the initial filing of five (5) Informations or formal charges which were docketed and eventually referred to RTC Branch 48 Masbate City, a Family Court (considering that one victim was a minor), as follows:
- Crim. Case No. 21293 – Violation of Sec. 6(a) of RA 9851, Crime Against Humanity
- Crim. Case No. 21294 – Violation of Sec. 4(c)(25)(iv) of RA 9851, War Crime
- Crim. Case No. 21295 – Murder (of Kieth Absalon)
- Crim. Case No. 21296 – Murder (of Nolven Absalon)
- Crim. Case No. 21296 – Attempted Murder (of Chrysvine Absalon)
The MCPO had earlier dismissed two (2) other charges, as these were considered as “necessary means” that are “absorbed” in the crimes of Murder, Attempted Murder, and Violation of RA 9851, namely Violation of RA 10591, illegal possession of firearms, and Violation of RA 9561, illegal possession of explosives.
However, after a later MCPS complaint for terrorism against the original 24 plus an additional 6 new respondents, the MCPO issued a second preliminary investigation Joint Resolution on February 24, 2022, resulting in the filing of the sixth Information or case, which was docketed and referred to RTC Branch 48 Masbate City, as follows:
- Crim. Case No. 21692 – Violation of Sec. 4(a) of RA 11479, Terrorism
The terrorism cases against all the said additional 6 new respondents and 2 of the original 24 accused were dismissed on preliminary investigation by the MCPO for lack of probable cause, thereby reducing the number of accused to 22 for the terrorism case only. It is interesting to note though that among the additional 6 new respondents whose cases were dismissed were no less than CPP founding chairman Jose Maria C. Sison, Rogelio Suson @ “Ka Manong/Julio” (father of the three original accused Suson sisters), and Dindo Monsanto @ “Ka Buddy” who would be later captured.
In the terrorism, war crime and crime against humanity cases, the public complainant was the Masbate City Police Station or its Chief of Police PLTCol Steve N. dela Rosa. In the murder and attempted murder cases, the private complainants were the victims’ next of kin, Vilma Absalon and Christine Absalon.
It is these above-said six court cases that matter in the final analysis, not the earlier investigation stages, even as there are important, even crucial, pieces of information that can be drawn for one’s own judgment.
- The Judicial Quest for Justice So Far
The first significant trial development was the RTC Branch 48 Masbate City Joint Order of Judge Designate Jose Ronald M. Bersales dated June 16, 2022 in all six cases, which granted the defense Demurrer to Evidence (a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of prosecution evidence) of accused Mariel Suson, represented by private defense counsel Atty. Ricar N. Vasquez. Mariel, a public elementary school teacher but whose father Rodelio Suson is “tagged by the Army as member of the CPP/NPA,” was the only accused who was arrested and had come under the court’s jurisdiction at the time. She, her two sisters Maila and Marla Suson, and three others Richard Lurio, Lloyd Mores Escorel, and Lenie Cabarles on board two motorcycles were charged as “spotters” and “sweepers” in aid of the ambushing NPA unit. The 18 others among the 24 accused were identified by two eyewitnesses and charged as commanders and fighters of this ambushing NPA unit, a platoon led by the principal accused Eddie Rosero @ “Ka Star” under Larangan 1 (Guerrilla Front 1, northern Masbate), KP 4 (Komiteng Probinsya or Provincial Committee 4 for Masbate), BRPC (Bicol Regional Party Committee) who went “down the hill” after the landmine explosion towards its fallen victims. By the said Joint Order, Mariel was acquitted in all six cases due to the materially inconsistent and not credible testimony of the lone prosecution witness, a habal habal driver, who purportedly identified her. The three Suson sisters appear to be victims of “guilt by association” through family ties with their father as a wanted NPA.
What followed seemed like an anarchy of litigation and tribunals. With the filing of the new or additional sixth case for terrorism, RTC Branch 48 Masbate City soon after referred it to RTC Branch 23 Naga City, the nearest “Anti-Terrorism Court” under the Supreme Court’s A.M. No. 21-08-07-SC dated 22 March 2022, and here it was re-docketed as Crim. Case No. 2022-0849. The rest of the above-listed initial five cases stayed with RTC Branch 48 Masbate City. But after all the judges in RTC Masbate City there inhibited themselves from hearing those cases, after the private complainants of the aggrieved Absalon family expressed “fear that they may not be able to have an impartial trial in Masbate City,” and upon separate requests of both the prosecution and defense, the Supreme Court Second Division only on October 4, 2023 ordered the transfer of venue of the five cases to RTC Taguig City, Metro Manila, with the RA 9851 cases to be raffled between the two “IHL Courts” in Taguig City under the Supreme Court’s A.M. No. 18-07-25-SC dated 7 August 2018, and the Murder and Attempted Murder cases to be raffled to any regular RTC in Taguig City. As things stand now, these five cases are lodged and docketed there, as follows:
- At RTC Branch 70 Taguig City, an “IHL Court” –
- Crim. Case No. 7812-D – Violation of Sec. 6(a) of RA 9851, Crime Against Humanity
- Crim. Case No. 7813-D – Violation of Sec. 4(c)(25)(iv) of RA 9851, War Crime
- At RTC Branch 153 Taguig City, a regular court–
- Crim. Case No. 7814 – Murder (of Kieth Absalon)
- Crim. Case No. 7815 – Murder (of Nolven Absalon)
- Crim. Case No. 7816 – Attempted Murder (of Chrysvine Absalon)
As may be expected, with these court venue transfers, the trials of these cases as to six newly arrested or surrendered accused has moved much slower than the earlier police and prosecution service investigation stages which together took only less than two months. Now, three years hence the Masbate landmining incident of 6 June 2021, where do things stand in all the afore-mentioned six court cases? One case is in RTC Branch 23 Naga City, two cases are in RTC Branch 70 Taguig City, and three cases are in RTC Branch 153 Taguig City. The said six newly arrested or surrendered accused are the two other Suson sisters Maila and Marla, also public elementary school teachers, and Eddie Esser @ “Ka Nono,” Jomar Tugbo @ “Ka Alden,” Rolly Hermina, and Noel Flores @ “Ka Jesmar.” The last four accused had been identified to be part of the ambushing NPA unit. Noel Flores @ “Ka Jesmar” had been identified by two eyewitnesses as the NPA unit member who finished off with assault rifle gunshots at close range the fallen but still alive Nolven Absalon. Principal accused then at large Eddie Rosero @ “Ka Star” had in turn been identified by the same two eyewitnesses as the NPA unit leader who likewise finished off with assault rifle gunshots at close range the fallen but still alive Kieth Absalon.
It is ironic that it is the latest filed court case, the Terrorism case, itself transferred from RTC Branch 48 Masbate City to RTC Branch 23 Naga City where it was re-docketed as Crim. Case No. 2022-0849, that was the next one among the six court cases to have a significant resolution. This was the Order of Presiding Judge Valentin E. Pura, Jr. dated 14 November 2023 which granted the defense Demurrers to Evidence for all above-said six accused who had come under the jurisdiction of the court at the time. Just like the earlier dismissed cases against accused Mariel Suson, this lone terrorism case against the said six accused turned on the issue of prosecution witnesses’ “reliability and credibility of identification” of the accused being “seriously impaired” by “the totality of circumstances,” no less than 21 of which were enumerated by the court. Based on this insufficiency of positive identification of the accused, “the court finds no further need to dwell on the second element of the crime charged,” particularly the terrorist purposes of the acts undoubtedly intended to cause death and serious bodily injury to persons under the charged violation of Sec. 4(a) of RA 11479, i.e. Terrorism in general. Note that this pertains to certain acts that have a terrorist purpose, and does not entail the characterization of the perpetrators’ organization (in this case the NPA) as “terrorist” whether by designation under Sec. 25 or by proscription under Sec. 26.
On the other hand, in the three murder and attempted murder cases, Crim. Cases Nos. 7814 to 7816 in RTC Branch 153 Taguig City, the Order of Presiding Judge Mariam C. Bien dated 05 February 2024 denied the defense Demurrers to Evidence for the same six accused in this general way: “After an assessment of the arguments of the parties and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this court finds that there is sufficient basis to support the charges in the information against” them. As of this writing, a defense Motion for Reconsideration thereof is pending resolution. If denied, the defense would have “to present controverting evidence.”
In the two RA 9851 violation (Crime Against Humanity, and War Crime) cases, Crim. Cases Nos. 7812-D and 7813-D in RTC Branch 70 Taguig City, the Order of Presiding Judge Bernard Pineda Bernal dated 12 April 2024 set the cases of the same six accused for “the initial presentation of defense evidence.” But as of this writing, the defense had just filed a manifestation adopting their Demurrers in the Branch 153 cases.
It might be noted that much, if not all, of the prosecution evidence for all six cases (initially against accused Mariel Suson only) in RTC Branch 48 Masbate City was adopted when these cases were broken up by category and transferred to RTC Branch 23 Naga City as “Anti-Terrorism Court,” RTC Branch 70 Taguig City as “IHL Court,” and RTC Branch 153 Taguig City as regular court. It remains to be seen whether the same arrangement will be made as far as defense evidence is concerned.
Justice in the Philippine court system is typically slow but worse than that sometimes elusive. By justice we mean giving what is due the victims and the perpetrators. This includes holding liable and punishing the truly guilty while sparing the innocent, those wrongly or wrongfully implicated, including by mere association and family ties. Philippine court justice in the herein Masbate landmining incident case would be (or would have been) better served by less anarchy of litigation and tribunals like that described above. Ideally, all related six cases arising from one incident with the same parties would have been better heard as consolidated cases for joint trial before just one court as close as possible, by location and by mother tongue, to the parties, the victims’ family, the witnesses and even the prosecution and defense lawyers. After all the RTC Masbate Judges inhibited from the cases and “that private complainants have every reason to fear that they may not be able to have an impartial trial in Masbate City,” that one court could have been the still relatively nearby RTC Branch 23 Naga City, an “Anti-Terrorism Court,” which had already heard the prosecution case in the one terrorism case against six accused (albeit largely adopting the prosecution evidence earlier presented in RTC Branch 48 Masbate City for all six cases but against accused Mariel Suson only). There is no reason why RTC Branch 23 Naga City, which is also a regular court, could not have also similarly and impartially heard the five other cases that instead were transferred to two RTC Taguig City branches, Branch 70 an “IHL Court” and Branch 153 a regular court. But in fact, there is also the still relatively nearby “IHL Court” of RTC Branch 3 Legazpi City. Where is “the method in the madness?”, one might ask.
Instead of judicial economy, coherence and consistency, which also make for speedier justice, there are now instead elements of dissonance, chaos and anarchy as well as concomitant delays among three court venues for three categories of cases: Terrorism, IHL and regular. A fourth category is Family Court when a minor accused or victim is involved, like the Masbate landmining incident’s minor surviving victim Chrysvine Absalon. Thus, all six cases arising from this incident were initially lodged with the RTC Masbate City Family Court, Branch 48. But later, we see that for the same six accused in one incident, there are conflicting rulings on basically the same defense Demurrers to Evidence. RTC Branch 23 Naga City (and even earlier RTC Branch 48 Masbate City) granted the Demurrers thus dismissing the Terrorism case against the six accused, while the two RTC Taguig City branches (at least Branch 153) denied the Demurrers thus proceeding to defense evidence presentation in continuation of trial in the five other cases against the same accused.
The anarchy of litigation has to do not only with tribunals but also with the kind of criminal cases filed and/or not filed arising from incidents clearly in the context of the local communist armed conflict (and for that matter the Moro armed conflict) as shown in already many court cases. One often sees the simultaneous and selective filing of various combinations of cases taken from this menu: Terrorism (RA 11479), Terrorist Financing (RA 10168), War Crimes (RA 9851 Sec. 4), Crimes Against Humanity (RA 9851 Sec, 6), Rebellion (RPC, Art. 134), Murder (RPC, Art. 248), Kidnapping (RPC, Art. 267), Arson (PD 1613), Illegal Possession of Firearms (RA 10591), Illegal Possession of Explosives (RA 9561), and likely soon enough Grave Child Rights Violations (RA 11188). The selective filing of charges sometimes seems like a “favor of the month” syndrome, especially after certain new special laws such as on war crimes and then on terrorism came into effect.
Where an act of armed hostility like an ambush has been clearly committed by a NPA unit or elements especially against government armed forces, rebellion for one should be charged as a rule. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is not, depending on the investigating prosecutor/s or prosecution panel. It was not charged in the Masbate landmining incident case, likely to allow the filing of murder charges that are generally easier to prosecute than rebellion. Otherwise, common crimes like murder, kidnapping and arson (but not all common crimes) that are committed in furtherance of rebellion would be considered absorbed in, as inherently part of, this political offense, under the old Huk-period but still governing 1956 Hernandez doctrine. But not War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, per the above-mentioned Ocampo case Concurring Opinion of Justice Leonen. And also not terrorism, which is distinct but not mutually exclusive from rebellion, per Justice del Castillo’s majority ruling in the 2017 Supreme Court Decision in Lagman vs. Medialdia.
The usual prosecution prerogative in determining which criminal cases to file arising from one incident needs better guidance for when there is a clear context of rebellion and internal armed conflict. Note also then Chief Justice Sereno’s Dissenting Opinion in Lagman pointing out the distinction between rebellion (under domestic criminal law) and armed conflict (even internal, under IHL) based on their respective elements and factors, with corresponding different applicable legal regimes. The charging of the proper offense/s based on the facts and circumstances with the best possible ascertainment from the available evidence at the preliminary investigation stage is also part of substantive due process, with a view to giving both the victims and the perpetrators their just due. This militates against weaponization of the law for counter-insurgency or for propaganda in violation of fair play, truth and justice that are the established parameters of court proceedings. This may have some bearing too on the peace process or whatever is left of it. On the other hand, the peace process, if successfully completed to include a component of transitional justice, might be able to address whatever remains unfulfilled in the judicial quest for justice. Unfortunately, a just peace does not appear to be forthcoming on the horizon, whether in the back channels or in the front lines in the field.
Tomorrow: Relevant Field Developments
(SOLIMAN M. SANTOS JR. is a retired RTC Judge of Naga City, Camarines Sur, serving in the judiciary there from 2010 to 2022. He has an A.B. in History cum laude from U.P. in 1975, a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Nueva Caceres (UNC) in Naga City in 1982, and a Master of Laws from the University of Melbourne in 2000. He is a long-time human rights and international humanitarian lawyer; legislative consultant and legal scholar; peace advocate, researcher and writer; and author of a number of books, including on the Moro and Communist fronts of war and peace. Among his authored books are The Moro Islamic Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for the Mindanao Peace Process published by UP Press in 2001; Judicial Activist: The Work of a Judge in the RTC of Naga City published by Central Books in 2023; and his latest, Tigaon 1969: Untold Stories of the CPP-NPA, KM and SDK published by Ateneo Press in 2023.)