8/11/2019 Centerlaw statement on the FIFO Rule

1/5

August 13, 2014

PRESS STATEMENT

Centerlaw: FFFJ Counsel Atty. Prima Jesusa Quinsayas is Guilty of Professional Negligence for her

Failure to Comprehend the First-In-First-Out Rule issued by the Supreme Court in the Ampatuan

Case

We at the Center for International Law (Centerlaw) express our grave alarm at the failure of

certain Private Prosecutors in the Maguindanao Massacre to comprehend a Supreme Court Resolution

which aims to speed up the trial of the multiple murder cases.

We refer specifically to what we have called by shorthand as the First-in-First-Our Rule (FIFO)

approved by the High Court for the Maguindanao Massacre trial.

For the record, it was Centerlaw through the Roque & Butuyan Law Offices that first proposed

FIFO. Simply, under FIFO, the court may already render judgment on the case of any accused over

whom all evidencefor and againsthas already been heard.

The rationale is that the families of victims and the accused do not have to wait for the evidence

concerning 194 Accused to be heard by the court to achieve justice, which could take a long, long, long

time.

This is the fair rule respecting due process for both the families of the victim and the Accused.

Thus in the Motion for the adoption by the trial court of the First-in-First Our Rule we filed on

December 5, 2011 with the Regional Trial Court Branch 221trying the multiple murder cases, we said in

part:

8/11/2019 Centerlaw statement on the FIFO Rule

2/5

At the time we filed the Motion, we said that of the 196 Accused1, only 93 have been arrested.

Of those arrested, only 64 had been arraigned. Meanwhile 70 witnesses have been heard in the last two

years of the trial as to the 64 Accused.

We noted in the Motion that under the ordinary rules of Philippine criminal procedure, the rule

is that an Accused is entitled to confront and cross-examine all his Accusers in court.

This would mean that there will be a constant recall to the witness stand of all witnesses

already presented each time there is a newly-arrested and newly-arraigned Accused. Assuming that

each of the 103 unarrested Accused claims the right to cross-examine their Accusers one by one, by this

measure, it would take a new series of cross-examinations at least 200 years to complete.

1It is now only 194. One accused died in jail while another was released by the Court for lack of evidence against

him.

8/11/2019 Centerlaw statement on the FIFO Rule

3/5

We said that none of the international tribunals of contemporary timeseven those for cases of

mass slaughter where the victims number by the hundreds, if not by the thousandshas resorted to

wholesale prosecution of suspects.

Ultimately, such an approach works against the interests of justice, because of the protracted

litigation it entails that could take years and years and years and years and years and years and yearsand years and years and years and years and years and years and years and years to wrap up, we said

in the 8-page motion.

For the record, other than by lawyers of the Center for International Law, the Motion proposing

the FIFO rule was also signed by the Deputy Regional Prosecutor Peter L. Medalle, Senior State

Assistant State Prosecutor Ma. Emilia L. Victorio, and Assistant State Prosecutor Susan Villanueva.

Atty. Nena Santos and Atty. Prima Quinsayas did not join the Motion.

The regional trial court hearing the case rejected the proposal, but the Supreme Court

subsequently adopted our proposal by issuing a Resolution to institutionalize it and to direct the trialcourt to implement it.

In paragraphs (2) and (3) OF A.M, No.10-11-5-SC, the Supreme Court thus directed Branch 221

Presiding Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes

to hold, based on her discretion separate trials for the accused against whom the prosecution

contemplates no further evidence and thereby order such accused to present their evidence

and, accordingly, have the case submitted for decision with respect to them; provided, that this

paragraph is without prejudice to the application of rules on demurrer to evidence or other

modes of terminating a case in advance of a full trial.

to issue, when appropriate, separate decisions or resolutions for issues which are ripe for

resolution in any of the 58 cases being heard without waiting for the completion of the

presentation of the evidence for all the accused.

The Resolution of the Supreme Court on FIFO is very clear. It so disturbing and bothersome

that the counsel hired by the FFFJ Atty. Prima Quinsayas and Atty. Nena Santos for that matter fail

to understand the same.

Atty. Quinsayas equates FIFO with any of the following: (1) the accused first on trial would be

the one whose case would first be resolved (2) the Accused first to be arraigned to be the one whose

case would first be resolved, and (3) first to file a Petition for Bail would be the one whose case would

first be resolved

She said as much in two statements she signed and posted by the Center for Media Freedom

and Responsibility on the latters Ampatuan Trial Watch blog.

8/11/2019 Centerlaw statement on the FIFO Rule

4/5

The first statement, posted on August 4, 2014 entitled, Private Prosecutor: resting in

evidence-in-chief does not reflect first in, first out principle said:

FFFJ legal counsel Prima JesusaQuinsayas said that resting in evidence-in-chief before the

resolution of bail petitions in the Ampatuan (Maguindanao) Massacre trial does not reflect the first in,

first out system. Quisanyas pointed out that the list of the 28 accused for whom state prosecutorsintend to rest their case in both the bail petitions and evidence-in-chief does not show that they

were among the first arrested, arraigned or the first to file a bail petition. (emphasis supplied).

The second statement, quoting Atty. Quinsayas and posted on August 8, 2014, and entitled

FFFJ counsel: clarifications on points raised by Atty. Harry Roque, said:

My understanding of the concept is that the accused first put on trial would be the one whose

case would first be resolved. But whether its First to be Arraigned, or First to File a Petition for Bail, the

list does not reflect any of those. Thus based on the list of the 28 accused, his reason for supporting the

partial resting in evidence-in-chief does not hold.

Obviously, Atty. Quinsayas totally misread what the Supreme Court said because in this second

statement, she also says that as for the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for the criminal

proceedings of the massacre, the First In First Out as a term does not appear in the said guidelines.

Instead, the guidelines allow separate trials for the accused if so decided by the trial judge based on her

discretion.

Exactly. First-in-First-Out:

to hold, based on her discretion separate trials for the accused against whom the

prosecution contemplates no further evidence and thereby order such accused to present

their evidence and, accordingly, have the case submitted for decision with respect to them;

provided, that this paragraph is without prejudice to the application of rules on demurrer to

evidence or other modes of terminating a case in advance of a full trial.

to issue, when appropriate, separate decisions or resolutions for issues which are ripe for

resolution in any of the 58 cases being heard without waiting for the completion of the

presentation of the evidence for all the accused.*emphasis supplied+

Essentially, the High Court approved our proposal as contained in our Motion asking the trial court to

adopt the First-in-First Out Rule in the trial of the cases.

It is highly disturbing to us that Attorneys Santos and Quinsayas have seriously jeopardized the

prosecution of the case by their professionally negligent blunder.

In their gross error they have likewise arrogantly issued public statements that questioned

without any basis the integrity of the work of the panel of public prosecutors and their fellow private

prosecutors.

8/11/2019 Centerlaw statement on the FIFO Rule

5/5

We call on organizations constituting the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) to re-

examine the professional competence of Atty. Quinsayas. We even invite these organizations to refer

the interpretation of Atty. Quinsayas on the FIFO rule to their respective independent counsels for

objective evaluation purposes.

As we have shown, her pointed and unfounded attacks on the integrity of the work of the publicprosecutors betray her uncomprehending incompetence. Unwittingly, she has not only placed in

serious risk the case of the other victims being prosecuted by other private prosecutors, but also those

of victims being supported by the FFFJ as an organization.

H. Harry L. Roque, Jr.

Joel Ruiz Butuyan

Romel Regalado Bagares

Gilbert T. Andres

Ethel Avisado

GeepeeAceron Gonzales