By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
MEMBERSHIP OF AN INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY NOT A BAR TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
MEMBERSHIP OF AN INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY NOT A BAR TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
THE CASE OF DATU MALINGIN VS. SANDAGAN, ET AL., G.R. NO. 240056 (12 OCTOBER 2020)
On 12 October 2020, the Supreme Court’s Second Division issued a Decision in Datu Malingin vs. PO3 Arvin Sandagan, et al., G.R. No. 240056 (12 October 2020). In the said case, Datu Malingin (Lemuel Talingting y Simborio), a Tribal Chieftain of the Higaonon-Sugbuanon Tribe, filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 asking for the Supreme Court to reverse the denial of his Motion to Quash by the Regional Trial Court of Abuyog, Leyte. Datu Malingin was accused of the crime of Rape for having carnal knowledge of a 14-year old minor on six (6) occasions by force, threat, intimidation and by taking advantage of superior strength.
In his Petition for Mandamus, petitioner Datu Malingin impleaded the presiding judge, the public prosecutor who caused the filing of the case and the police officers who arrested him. Datu Malingin argued that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion when he supposedly failed to observe the rights of members of an indigenous group. Datu Malingin averred that IPs are not included in the persons subject of the country’s penal laws because they have the right to use customary laws and practices to resolve disputes. Datu Malingin likewise ascribed grave abuse of discretion against respondent judge arguing that the latter did not consider that the cases cognizable by regular courts do not include those covered by Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. Datu Malingin likewise accused the police officers of Arbitrary Detention because they detained him without warrant of arrest.
In dismissing the Petition for Mandamus of Datu Malingin, the Supreme Court held that Datu Malingin failed to establish clear legal right. Under the erudite pen of Boholano Justice Jean Paul Henri Inting, the Court held that Datu Malingin’s indictment for Rape has nothing to do with his purported membership in an Indigenous Cultural Community (“ICC”), but by reason of his alleged acts that is covered by the Revised Penal Code. The Court added that the IPRA Law does not serve as a bar for criminal prosecution because crime is an offense against society. Our country’s penal laws apply to individuals without regard to his or her membership in an ICC. The ponencia further held:
“Definitely, customary laws and practices of the IPs may be invoked provided that they are not in conflict with the legal system of the country. There must be legal harmony between the national laws and customary laws and practices in order for the latter to be viable and valid and must not undermine the application of legislative enactments, including penal laws.”
The case of Datu Malingin is not the first instance wherein a member of an Indigenous People (“IP”) invoked the primacy of customary laws under the IPRA Law. In the case of Ha Datu Tahawig vs. Lapinid, G.R. No. 221138 (20 March 2019), the Supreme Court held that the mantle of protection afforded by law to the ICCs/IPs did not deprive jurisdiction of our courts over criminal cases. This means that members of an ICC who are charged with criminal offenses cannot simply invoke the IPRA Law to evade prosecution and possibility of criminal sanctions. The Court reiterated its earlier pronouncement in Ha Datu Tahawig that one’s membership to an indigenous group shall not hinder the filing of a criminal case against concerned person. Therefore, the Court said that it follows that no right of Datu Malingin, as an alleged member of an ICC, was violated by the filing of Rape charges against him which led to the dismissal of his Petition for Mandamus.