SC: Conviction required in compensation claims for unjust imprisonment
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
SC: Conviction required in compensation claims for unjust imprisonment
The Supreme Court has ruled that an individual must have been convicted first before availing of compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that an individual must have been convicted first before availing of compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
This is under Republic Act No. 7309 or An Act Creating a Board of Claims Under the Department of Justice for Victims of Unjust Imprisonment or Detention and Victims of Violent Crimes and for Other Purposes.
This is under Republic Act No. 7309 or An Act Creating a Board of Claims Under the Department of Justice for Victims of Unjust Imprisonment or Detention and Victims of Violent Crimes and for Other Purposes.
In a decision of the en banc promulgated on February 24, 2024, the court denied the petition for certiorari of Main Mohammad against the Department of Justice.
In a decision of the en banc promulgated on February 24, 2024, the court denied the petition for certiorari of Main Mohammad against the Department of Justice.
In 2017, Mohammad, who was identified as a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group, was arrested, detained, and charged with piracy and two counts of murder.
In 2017, Mohammad, who was identified as a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group, was arrested, detained, and charged with piracy and two counts of murder.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the charges were dismissed in 2019 after the prosecution failed to produce a witness who could identify Mohammad as the same person charged in the information.
But the charges were dismissed in 2019 after the prosecution failed to produce a witness who could identify Mohammad as the same person charged in the information.
Mohammad then filed a compensation claim before the Board in Zamboanga City which was denied because prior conviction in the trial court and subsequent release from detention due to acquittal on appeal are required.
Mohammad then filed a compensation claim before the Board in Zamboanga City which was denied because prior conviction in the trial court and subsequent release from detention due to acquittal on appeal are required.
The DOJ, then led by Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, affirmed the Board, prompting Mohammad to file a petition before the Supreme Court.
The DOJ, then led by Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, affirmed the Board, prompting Mohammad to file a petition before the Supreme Court.
Mohammad argued that the conjunction “and” in Section 3(a) of the law should be construed as “or” to avoid injustice to persons unjustly prosecuted even though subsequently acquitted by the trial court.
Mohammad argued that the conjunction “and” in Section 3(a) of the law should be construed as “or” to avoid injustice to persons unjustly prosecuted even though subsequently acquitted by the trial court.
The Supreme Court however noted that the law mandates that an individual must have been unjustly accused, convicted of the offense, imprisoned due to his conviction and subsequently acquitted by a judgment.
The Supreme Court however noted that the law mandates that an individual must have been unjustly accused, convicted of the offense, imprisoned due to his conviction and subsequently acquitted by a judgment.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court emphasized that all the elements are cumulative, rather than alternative, since the conjunctive word “and” indicates the union of words or phrases.
The Supreme Court emphasized that all the elements are cumulative, rather than alternative, since the conjunctive word “and” indicates the union of words or phrases.
“No over-reliance was made on the word “and,” as both the Secretary and the Board merely applied the clear wording of the law and in doing so, they gave life to the intent of the legislature, which was to categorically set the elements that must concur before a person can be entitled to file a claim before the Board,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
“No over-reliance was made on the word “and,” as both the Secretary and the Board merely applied the clear wording of the law and in doing so, they gave life to the intent of the legislature, which was to categorically set the elements that must concur before a person can be entitled to file a claim before the Board,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The court also included in the decision a “final note” on Muslim profiling.
The court also included in the decision a “final note” on Muslim profiling.
The court noted Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen underscored that they are neither deaf nor blind to the discrimination leveled against the Muslim community.
The court noted Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen underscored that they are neither deaf nor blind to the discrimination leveled against the Muslim community.
Leonen noted a case that appears to be a manifestation of the state wrongfully depriving a citizen of their liberty for a mistaken identity on a completely groundless basis.
Leonen noted a case that appears to be a manifestation of the state wrongfully depriving a citizen of their liberty for a mistaken identity on a completely groundless basis.
ADVERTISEMENT
“This is where the court must step in to ensure that justice is administered in a responsive manner and that a fair and speedy trial is a guarantee assured to all who come before it, race, religion, gender, and age regardless,” the court said.
“This is where the court must step in to ensure that justice is administered in a responsive manner and that a fair and speedy trial is a guarantee assured to all who come before it, race, religion, gender, and age regardless,” the court said.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
