By Atty. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
MAIN T. MOHAMMAD VS. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, G.R. NO. 256116 (FEBRUARY 27, 2024): PRIOR CONVICTION REQUIRED FOR COMPENSATION CLAIM UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7309
Petitioner Main T. Mohammad assails by way of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court the Decision dated February 21, 2021, of the Secretary of Justice affirming the Decision dated November 18, 2020 of the Board of Claims which denied the Petitioner’s application for compensation under Republic Act No. 7309 (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). The Board of Claims denied Petitioner’s compensation application for lack of prior conviction.
The Petitioner was arrested, detained and charged with piracy and two (2) counts of murder. Petitioner was identified as a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group responsible for the kidnapping and murder of certain individuals. In a Resolution dated April 9, 2019, the charges of murder were dismissed as the prosecution was unable to produce a witness who could identify Mohammad as the same person charged in the Information. Hence, upon his release, the Petitioner filed a compensation claim.
Petitioner is claiming under Section 3 of RA 7309 which allow filing of claims by “any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal” and argued that the term “and” should not be strictly construed as implying conjunction or union of words connected by it because in doing so would result in grave injustice to him and other persons similarly situated. Petitioner avers that conjunctive “and” should not be taken in its ordinary acceptation but should be construed like the disjunctive “or” if the literal interpretation would pervert or obscure the legislative intent.
In denying the Petition, the Supreme Court sitting En Banc held that the provision of law is clear and the following elements under Section 3 (a) of RA 7309 must concur: (a) there must be a person who was unjustly accused; (b) the person must have been convicted of the offense; (c) the person was imprisoned by virtue of the conviction; and (d) the person was subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal. The Court held that all elements are absent to grant the Petitioner compensation under RA 7309.
The Supreme Court cited the case of Basbacio vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 109445 (November 7, 1994), wherein the Supreme Court held that prosecution is not considered malicious, and accusation is not necessarily considered unjust if the accused was charged by virtue of a probable guilt but did not result to conviction because the required quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met. In the instant case, Petitioner failed to prove that he was unjustly accused.
On the second element, the Court held that there is no prior conviction of the Petitioner which is required under the law. The Court affirmed the Secretary of Justice that the conviction may be determined as unjust only when there is a judgment of acquittal by an appellate court. In the instant case, Petitioner was acquitted at the first instance by the Regional Trial Court due to failure of the prosecution to produce an identifying witness. Considering that the second element is absent, it is but logical that the third and fourth elements are likewise absent.