PHOTO: Manfred Richter/Pixabay
Facts
On September 18, 2017, Main T. Mohammad (Mohammad) was arrested, detained, and charged with piracy and two counts of murder, being identified as a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). The murder charges were dismissed by the trial court due to the prosecution’s failure to produce a witness who could identify Mohammad.
After his acquittal, Mohammad filed a claim for compensation under R.A. No. 7309, arguing he was mistakenly identified as a member of the ASG and was unjustly arrested, accused, and detained for two years for crimes he did not commit.
The DOJ Board of Claims denied his application, citing lack of prior conviction as required by law. In its decision dated February 1, 2021, the Secretary of Justice affirmed the Board’s decision, leading Mohammad to file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mohammad is entitled to a claim for compensation under R.A. No. 7309
Ruling
NO. The Court held that grave abuse of discretion requires a patent and gross abuse, which was not present in this case. According to the Supreme Court, Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 7309 is clear: all elements: unjust accusation, conviction, imprisonment, and subsequent acquittal, must be present for a claim to prosper.
In this case, Mohammad was never convicted, only detained during the pendency of his trial because the crimes charged against him were piracy and murder, both non-bailable offenses. Thus, the essential element of prior conviction was lacking, and so were the subsequent elements of imprisonment by virtue of conviction and release by acquittal. The Court emphasized that an accusation based on probable cause is not an unjust accusation, and an acquittal at the trial level does not equate to an unjust conviction.
The Court applied the verba legis rule, giving the law’s words their plain and ordinary meaning, and rejected Mohammad’s plea to interpret “and” as “or.” The Court also addressed the issue of discrimination and profiling against Muslims, acknowledging systemic issues but holding that it cannot amend the law to address perceived injustices beyond its judicial function.
Hence, the Supreme Court denied the present petition and affirmed the Secretary of Justice’s decision dated February 1, 2021.