Main Mohammad vs Secretary of Justice

G.R. No. 256116 – Statutory Construction – RA 7309; Victims Compensation Act – Use of Conjunctive Word “and”

In 2017, Main Mohammad was indicted for murder. He was accused of being a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group. Since his case was non-bailable, he underwent preventive imprisonment. After two years of hearing, he was acquitted. After release, he filed a claim for compensation under Republic Act No. 7309 or the Victims Compensation Act as he invoked Section 3a of the law which provides:

Section 3. Who may File Claims. – The following may file claims for compensation before the Board:

(a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal;

His claim was denied on the ground that the above provision clearly states that there must be a prior conviction before he may be allowed to file a claim. He appealed the denial but the Secretary of Justice affirmed the decision of the Victims Compensation Board.

He elevated the case to the Supreme Court by way of certiorari. He is now arguing that the conjunctive word “and” in Section 3a must be interpreted to mean “OR” as it was the intent of Congress to compensate all forms of unjust imprisonment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Main Mohammad is entitled to compensation under RA 7309.

HELD: No. The wording of the law is clear. Main Mohammad’s argument, though attractive, is misleading. Congress, when it used the word “and” categorically set the elements before one may be able to file a claim under Section 3a of RA 7309. The intention was cumulative rather than alternative, thus, one must first be (1) unjustly accused, then (2) unjustly convicted, (3) unjustly imprisoned, and (4) subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal.

In this case, there was no conviction because the trial court acquitted him.

Further, Main Mohammad failed to establish the first requisite which is unjust accusation. He never demonstrated as to why was he unjustly accused. His subsequent acquittal does not automatically mean that the accusation against him was unjust. When he was indicted, it was upon “probable cause.” An accusation based only upon “probable cause” is not unjust. Such accusation and subsequent detention may be erroneous but not unjust.

Read full text.