REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

PASIG CITY

CAREN F. ARANETA, JULIET PALOR

EVARDO, MA. CIPRIANA GATCHALIAN,
GLENNA G. LEGARTA, MARY JEAN M.
MERISCO, CATHERINE NUÑEZ, NOEMI E.
PARCON, MYRNA P. REBLANDO,
RAMONITA S. SALAYSAY, EDITHA
MIRANDILLA TIAMZON, ERLYN IDALO
UMPAD, AND JOVELYN DUHAY VILLACASTIN,
Complainants,

-- versus --
Case No. ______________
For: Disbarment

ATTY. ALBERTO C. AGRA,

Respondent.
x -------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT FOR DISABARMENT

COMPLAINANTS CAREN F. ARANETA, JULIET PALOR EVARDO, MA. CIPRIANA

GATCHALIAN, GLENNA G. LEGARTA,MARY JEAN M. MERISCO, CATHERINE NUÑEZ,

NOEMI E. PARCON, MYRNA P. REBLANDO, RAMONITA S. SALAYSAY, EDITHA

MIRANDILLA TIAMZON, ERLYN IDALO UMPAD (FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR

CHILD JAPHET ELDIAN UMPAD ARRIOLA), AND JOVELYN DUHAY VILLACASTIN AS

HEIRS OF THE JOURNALISTS SLAUGHTERED IN THE 23 NOVEMBER 2009 MAGUINDANAO

MASSACRE, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Office, respectfully

state that:

PARTIES

The Complainants are:

1) CAREN F. ARANETA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and wife of

HENRY ARANETA, who worked as a journalist for DZRH in General

Santos City.

1
 2) JULIET PALOR EVARDO, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and

mother of JULITO EVARDO, who worked as a journalist for UNTV in

General Santos City.

3) MA. CIPRIANA GATCHALIAN, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and

is the wife of SANTOS “JUN” P. GATCHALIAN, JR. who worked as a

journalist for Metro Gazette in Davao City.

4) GLENNA G. LEGARTA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and wife

of BIENVENIDO LEGARTA, who worked as a journalist for Periodico Ini

in Koronadal City.

5) MARY JEAN M. MERISCO, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and is

the wife of REY MERISCO, who worked as a journalist for for Periodico

Ini in Koronadal City.

6) CATHERINE NUÑEZ, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and mother

of VICTOR NUÑEZ, who worked as a journalist for UNTV in General

Santos City.

7) NOEMI E. PARCON, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and wife of

JOEL V. PARCON, who worked as a journalist for Prontiera News in

Koronadal City.

8) MYRNA P. REBLANDO, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and wife

of ALEJANDRO “Bong” M. REBLANDO, who worked as a journalist for

Manila Bulletin in General Santos City.

2
 9) RAMONITA S. SALAYSAY, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and

wife of NAPOLEON SALAYSAY, who worked as a journalist for Mindanao

Gazette in Cotabato City.

10) EDITHA MIRANDILLA TIAMZON, is of legal age, Filipino citizen,

and wife of DANIEL BECOLLADO TIAMZON, who worked as a crew for

UNTV in General Santos City.

11) ERLYN IDALO UMPAD, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and live-

in partner of McDELBERT ARRIOLA, who worked as a journalist for

UNTV in General Santos City. She is filing this Complaint for and in

behalf of her minor child with McDELBERT ARRIOLA, namely JAPHET

ELDIAN UMPAD ARRIOLA.

12) JOVELYN DUHAY VILLACASTIN, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and

sister of JHOY DUHAY, who worked as a journalist for Goldstar Daily in

Cagayan De Oro City.

13) All the Complainants may be served with pertinent papers,

processes, and notices c/o the undersigned counsel, Atty. H. Harry L.

Roque, Jr. at Unit 1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Centre, 121 Valero

Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City.

Respondent:

14) The lone Respondent is ATTY. ALBERTO C. AGRA, Filipino, of

legal age, a member of the Philippine bar, and currently Acting

Secretary of the Department of Justice. He may be served with

pertinent papers, processes, and notices through the Department of

Justice, Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila 1000.

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

15) In the afternoon of 22 November 2009, according to the

Sinumpaang Salaysay of Kenny B. Dalandag, he was inside the

compound of former Maguindanao Governor Datu Andal Ampatuan Sr.

to attend a meeting. In the said occasion he saw ARMM Governor

Datu Zaldy “Puti” Ampatuan, among other people.1 (Attached as

ANNEX A is the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Kenny B. Dalandag).

16) On 23 November 2009, Buluan Vice Mayor Esmael “Toto”

Mangudadatu (hereinafter “Vice Mayor Mangudadatu”) was scheduled

to file his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the forthcoming May 2010

elections before the Comelec office in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao, for

the position of Governor of Maguindanao.

17) In order to ease the tension between the Mangudadatus

and the Ampatuans, Vice Mayor Mangudadatu decided to send his

wife, two sisters, aunt and two women-lawyers in the belief that their

womanhood will be respected. According to Vice Mayor Mangudadatu,

he received reports that the Ampatuans, whom he will challenge in

the gubernatorial race in next year’s elections, had threatened to

chop him into pieces once he filed his candidacy. So Vice Mayor

Mangudadatu sent an all-woman team and journalists, the Vice Mayor

reasoning that “Under our tradition, Muslim women are being

respected. They should not be harmed just like innocent children and

the elders.”2

1
Based on page 3 of Kenny B. Dalandag’s Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 07 December
2009 (Attached as ANNEX A).
2
Based on http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091126-
238432/Massacre-planned-says-Buluan-vice-mayor.

4
 18) The Mangudadatu women who were in the convoy were:

(a) Bai Genalin Mangudadatu (his wife);

(b) Bai Eden Mangudadatu (his sister);
(c) Bai Farina Mangudadatu (his sister);
(d) Bai RoComplainantsna Mangudadatu (his aunt);
(e) Atty. Cynthia Oquendo-Ayon (his lawyer); and
(f) Atty. Connie Brizuela (his lawyer).

19) In order to cover the supposedly landmark filing of the

COC, journalists from all over Mindanao Complainantsre invited to join

the convoy to Shariff Aguak.

20) Twelve (12) of the thirty (30) journalists who joined the

Mangudadatu convoy are the family members of Complainants.

21) Complainants learned from press reports that the convoy

of Vice Mayor Mangudadatu was composed of six (6) vehicles:

(a) 4 Toyota Grandia vans (one grey, one green, and two
white); and

(b) 2 two media vehicles – a Pajero owned by DZRH broadcast

journalist Henry Araneta and a Mitsubishi L-300 van owned
by UNTV.

There was a seventh vehicle, a Grandia boarded by mediamen, but it

lagged behind and decided to turn around once the passengers sensed

what was happening.

22) Complainants also learned from press reports that there

were two (2) other vehicles that were not part of the Mangudadatu

convoy but happened to be traveling on the same highway:

(a) a red Toyota Vios; and

(b) a light blue Toyota Tamaraw FX.

5
 The Vios had five (5) passengers: Eduardo Lechonsito, a

government employee who was bound for a hospital in Cotabato City

after suffering a mild stroke Monday morning. He was with his wife

Cecille, co-workers Mercy Palabrica and Daryll delos Reyes, and driver

Wilhelm Palabrica. The FX was driven by Anthony Ridao, employee of

the National Statistics Coordination Board, and son of Cotabato City

councilor Marino Ridao.

23) Complainants learned later from radio, television, and

newspaper reports that the Mangudadatu convoy was intercepted in

Ampatuan, Maguindanao by more than a hundred (100) armed men,

and that all the persons on board the vehicles were brought to a

nearby killing field. Fifty-seven (57) women and men were brutally

murdered on the hilly portion of Sitio Masalay, Brgy. Salman,

Ampatuan, Maguindanao.

24) Of the fifty-seven (57) people murdered in the

Maguindanao massacre, twelve (12) of the murdered journalists were

the family members of Complainants. The brutally mangled bodies of

Complainants’ slain journalist-family members were recovered on the

hilly portion of Sitio Masalay, Brgy. Salman, Ampatuan, Maguindanao.

The murdered journalist-family members of Complainants are:

(a) HENRY ARANETA (for DZRH in General Santos City);

(b) McDELBERT ARRIOLA (for UNTV in General Santos City);

(c) JHOY DUHAY (for Goldstar Daily in Cagayan De Oro City);

(d) JULITO EVARDO (for UNTV in General Santos City);

(e) SANTOS “JUN” P. GATCHALIAN, JR. (for Metro Gazette in

Davao City);

6
 (f) BIENVENIDO LEGARTA (for Periodico Ini in Koronadal City);

(g) REY MERISCO (for Periodico Ini in Koronadal City);

(h) VICTOR NUÑEZ (for UNTV in General Santos City);

(i) JOEL V. PARCON (for Prontiera News in Koronadal City);

(j) ALEJANDRO “Bong” M. REBLANDO (for Manila Bulletin in

General Santos City);

(k) NAPOLEON SALAYSAY (for Clearview Gazette in Cotabato

City); and

(l) DANIEL BECOLLADO TIAMZON (for UNTV in General Santos

City).

25) Complainants are related to the nine (9) murdered

journalists as follows:

(a) COMPLAINANT CAREN F. ARANETA is the wife of HENRY ARANETA

(for DZRH in General Santos City);

(b) COMPLAINANT JULIET PALOR EVARDO is the mother of JULITO

EVARDO (for UNTV in General Santos City);

(c) COMPLAINANT MA. CIPRIANA GATCHALIAN is the wife of SANTOS “JUN”

P. GATCHALIAN, JR. (for Metro Gazette in Davao City);

(d) COMPLAINANT GLENNA G. LEGARTA is the wife of BIENVENIDO

LEGARTA (for Periodico Ini in Koronadal City);

(e) COMPLAINANT MARY JEAN M. MERISCO is the wife of REY MERISCO

(for Periodico Ini in Koronadal City);

(f) COMPLAINANT CATHERINE NUÑEZ is the mother of VICTOR NUÑEZ

(for UNTV in General Santos City);

(g) COMPLAINANT NOEMI E. PARCON is the wife of JOEL V. PARCON (for

Prontiera News in Koronadal City);

(h) COMPLAINANT MYRNA P. REBLANDO, is the wife of

ALEJANDRO “Bong” M. REBLANDO (for Manila
Bulletin in General Santos City);

(i) COMPLAINANT RAMONITA S. SALAYSAY is the wife of NAPOLEON

SALAYSAY (for Mindanao Gazette in Cotabato City);

(j) COMPLAINANT EDITHA MIRANDILLA TIAMZON is the wife of DANIEL

BECOLLADO TIAMZON (for UNTV in General Santos City);

7
 (k) COMPLAINANT ERLYN IDALO UMPAD is the mother of the minor child
of McDELBERT ARRIOLA (for UNTV in General Santos City);
and

(l) COMPLAINANT JOVELYN DUHAY VILLACASTIN is the sister of JHOY DUHAY

(for Goldstar Daily in Cagayan De Oro City).

26) Under Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Orders No.

935 and 948, a panel of investigating prosecutors was constituted as

acting provincial prosecutors of Maguindanao.

27) On 26 November 2009, Complainants learned from reports

that Datu Andal “Unsay” was arrested, subjected to inquest, and

indicted for multiple murder.

28) Complainants subsequently learned that the National

Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint dated 26 November

2009 for abduction, multiple murder, robbery and damage to property,

against Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr., which was endorsed for

inquest to the DOJ panel of investigating prosecutors. The PNP-CIDG-

CIDD likewise filed a complaint before the DOJ panel of investigating

prosecutors.

29) Complainants subsequently learned that on 14 December

2009, the NBI filed before the DOJ additional sworn statements, which

includes the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Kenny B. Dalandag dated 07

December 2009.

8
 30) On 28 December 2009, Complainants filed their respective

complaint-affidavits before the DOJ panel of investigating prosecutors.

In their respective complaint-affidavits filed before the DOJ,

Complainants have clearly indicated their corresponding addresses.

(Attached as ANNEX B and series are the respective complaint-

affidavits filed before the DOJ by nine of herein Complainants).

31) In a Joint Resolution dated 05 February 2010, the DOJ

panel of investigating prosecutors found probable cause for multiple

murder against, inter alia, respondents Datu Zaldy “Puti” U. Ampatuan

(hereinafter “Datu Zaldy”), and Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan Sr.

(hereinafter “Datu Akmad”). The 05 February 2010 states inter alia

that:

The confluence of events before and immediately

after the commission of the offense leads us to no other
inference than that respondents Andal U. Ampatuan, Sr.,
Datu Zaldy “Puti” U. Ampatuan, Datu Akmad “Tato”
Ampatuan, Sr., Datu Norodin Ampatuan, and Datu Jimmy
Ampatuan connived with the actual perpetrators. The
evidence on record established that these respondents
instigated the plan to ambush members of the
Mangudadatu clan who were to travel to the COMELEC
office in the provincial capitol of Maguindanao.3

32) Further, the 05 February 2010 Joint Resolution of the DOJ

panel of investigating prosecutors did not lend credence to the defense

of alibi of respondents Datu Zaldy, and Datu Akmad, to wit:

3
Pages 61-62 of the DOJ panel of investigating prosecutors’ 05 February 2010 Joint
Resolution.

9
 There was unanimity among respondents Datu Zaldy
“Puti” U. Ampatuan, Datu Saudi B. Ampatuan, Datu Akmad
“Tato” Ampatuan and Datu Sajid Islam U. Ampatuan in
refuting the allegations against them. They asseverated
defenses of denial and alibi in order to escape culpability.
However, such defenses will not sway the outcome in their
favor. For one, positive identification when categorical and
consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the
eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over alibi
and denial (People vs. Barlaan, 531 SCRA 849). Alibi is the
weakest defense not only because of its inherent weakness
and unreliability, but also because it is easy to fabricate
(People vs. Pandapatam, 521 SCRA 304). Further, alibi and
denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, are negative self-serving evidence undeserving
of weight in law (People vs. Tumulak, 539 SCRA 296).4

33) On 09 February 2010, the DOJ panel of State Prosecutors

filed a “motion with leave of court to admit the amended information”

before Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, so

as to include, inter alia, Datu Zaldy, and Datu Akmad.

34) The RTC Quezon City subsequently admitted the amended

information such that, inter alia, Datu Zaldy and Datu Akmad were

included in the information before the said court.

35) On 16 April 2010, Acting Justice Secretary Atty. Alberto C.

Agra (hereinafter “Respondent Atty. Agra”) issued a Resolution

resolving the petitions for review filed by respondents Datu Zaldy, and

Datu Akmad.

4
Page 62 of the DOJ panel of investigating prosecutors’ 05 February 2010 Joint
Resolution.

10
 36) Respondent Atty. Agra’s 16 April 2010 Resolution excludes

from indictment Datu Zaldy and Datu Akmad for the 23 November

2009 Maguindanao massacre. The dispositive portion of Respondent

Atty. Agra’s 16 April 2010 Resolution states:

xxx The Acting Provincial Prosecutors of Maguindanao are

directed to immediately file amended informations in
Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148 to Q-09-162172, Q-09-
162216 to Q-09-162231 and Q-10-162652 to Q-10-162666,
all for murder, to the exclusion of respondents Datu Zaldy
“Puti” U. Ampatuan and Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan Sr.,
and to report the action taken within five (5) days from
receipt hereof.5

(Attached as ANNEX C is a copy of Respondent Atty. Agra’s 16

April 2010 Resolution)

37) Further, Respondent Atty. Agra’s 16 April 2010 Resolution

tried to explain the exclusion from indictment of Datus Zaldy and

Akmad by stating that:

Thus, with regard to respondents Datu Zaldy “Puti”

Ampatuan and Datu Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan Sr., their
defense of alibi is inherently weak and can easily be
fabricated (people vs. Carullo, 289 SCRA 481; People vs.
Tulop, 289 SCRA 316; People vs. Dacoba, 289 SCRA 265).
However, complainants cannot profit from the weakness of
their alibi. Complainants must rely on the strength of their
evidence to establish the guilt of said respondents (People
vs. Ragay, 277 106). xxx 6

5
Page 13 of Atty. Agra’s 16 April 2010 Resolution (ANNEX C).
6
Page 12 of Atty. Agra’s 16 April 2010 Resolution (ANNEX C).

11
 38) Respondent Atty. Agra rendered his Resolution even with

the glaring irregularity that herein Complainants were never served a

copy of the petitions for review filed by Datu Zaldy and Datu Akmad.

For the blatant failure of Datu Zaldy and Datu Akmad to serve copies

of their petitions to the Complainants, Respondent Atty. Agra should

have dismissed the said petitions.

39) Respondent Atty. Agra rendered his Resolution even

without requiring and hearing the comments of the Complainants, in

gross violation of the Complainants’ Constitutional rights to due

process which demand that they be heard first before they are

deprived of their rights. It is basic and elementary for any lawyer ---

like Respondent Atty. Agra --- that a lawyer is duty-bound to first

hear the side of the other party before said lawyer can rightfully

render a resolution. It was utterly unlawful, dishonest, deceitful,

immoral, and and certainly shameless to the legal profession that

Respondent Atty. Agra proceeded to railroad his Resolution without

consideration of the Complainants’ right to be heard.

40) Further, in the Manila Times newspaper dated 20 April

2010, Respondent Atty. Agra admitted that he used a “special lane” in

exonerating Datu Zaldy and Datu Akmad of involvement in the 23

November Maguindanao massacre.7 (Attached as ANNEX D is a copy

of the pertinent portion of the 20 April 2010 edition of Manila Times).

7
Page 1 of the 20 April 2010 Manila Times (ANNEX D).

12
 41) According to the 20 April 2010 edition of the Manila Times,

Respondent Atty. Agra admitted that he did not follow the regular

administrative procedure in the resolution of the case in dismissing the

charges against the two Ampatuans.8 Respondent Atty. Agra admitted

that he acted on the Resolution even if it was glaring and blatant

that the administrative precondition and requirement of the prior

approval of Chief State Prosecutor Claro Arellano had not been

complied with and given.9 The Respondent’s wanton violation of the

administrative rules of government is unlawful, dishonest,

immoral, and evinces a brazen bias to fast-track a favorable

ruling for Datu Zaldy and Datu Akmad.

42) Coupled with (a) his disregard of the rule that the petition

for review should have been dismissed for failure to serve copies of

the same to the adverse parties, (b) his violation of the Complainants’

constitutional right to due process and to be heard, and (c) his

violation of administrative procedures to comply with the precondition

of the Chief State Prosecutor’s approval of the Resolution, Respondent

Atty. Agra’s finding of the lack of probable cause against Datu Zaldy

and Datu Akmad amounts to utterly unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful

disregard of the evidence. The positive identification of Kenny B.

Dalandag --- among other evidence found and relied upon by the

panel of state prosecutors --- of all the principal accused as part of

the conspiracy and planning of the massacre amount probable

cause against Datu Zaldy and Datu Akmad. Respondent Atty. Agra

8
Page 1 of the 20 April 2010 Manila Times (ANNEX D).
9
Page 1 of the 20 April 2010 Manila Times (ANNEX D).

13
violated law and jurisprudence on probable cause when he

rendered his questioned Resolution.

43) Complainants respectfully pray that Respondent Atty. Agra

be disbarred for violating his oath and duties as a lawyer and the

Code of Professional Responsibility --- among others Rule 1.01,

Rule 1.02, --- in the highly irregular manner in which he issued his 16

April 2010 Resolution.

44) Complainants respectfully pray that Respondent Atty. Agra

be disbarred for deceit, and gross misconduct in office, for the

highly irregular manner in which he issued his 16 April 2010

Resolution.

45) Complainants respectfully pray that Respondent Atty. Agra

be disbarred for rendering a 16 April 2010 Resolution that is

manifestly contrary to law and jurisprudence.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Complainants respectfully pray that Respondent

Atty. Alberto C. Agra be DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise

prayed for.

14
Makati City for Pasig City. April 22, 2010.

by the Counsel for Complainants:

H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR.

PTR No. 0008545/Jan 13, 2010/Makati City
IBP No. 499912/Lifetime/Makati City
Roll No. 36976
(Certificate of Exemption is still under process)
1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Center
121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village
Makati City 1200
Email: mail@roquebutuyan.com
Tel. Nos. 887-4445/887-3894
Fax No: 887-3893

15