THE wife of the victim in the February mall shooting has submitted a motion for partial reconsideration seeking the indictment of Buluan Vice Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu.

Natividad de Arce Kamendan, though her lawyer, seeks partial reconsideration of the March 3 joint resolution saying, "the investigating panel, in dismissing the case against respodent Mangudadatu (Esmael), went beyond its authority as investigating prosecutors, usurped the function reserved for judges to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused in criminal cases and relied upon evidence not presented in the manner prescribed under the rules of court."

Click here for Election 2010 updates

The motion stated that there are more than adequate evidence to justify the indictment of Mangudadatu for the crime charged and clear and direct evidences do not exist to discredit the testimony of the victim's wife.

It added that the panel, composed of prosecutors Maria Gemma Tambis, Jofre Saniel and Marte Melchor Velasco, should have ruled as it did in charging accused PO1 Surab Lintukan Bantas and PO1 Ibrahim M. Langalen that Mangudadatu's alibis and excused are matters of defense for the court to determine during trial.

It pointed out that "the obligation of the investigating prosecutors is clear and that is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether or not respondents are probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial" on the basis that the victim, Tamano Kamendan was with his four-month pregnant wife, Natividad, unarmed.

Mangudadatu, aside from his children, was said to be protected and guarded by two uniformed and armed PNP security escorts, respondents Bantas and Langalen, and was accompanied by two other civilian aides, James Musa and Arneil Alangkat.

"With the positive identification of respondent Mangudadatu and direct evidence of his ordering the shooting of Tamano Kamendan, there was already probable cause against respondent Mangudadatu" it added.

The motion also questioned how the panel of veteran prosecutors could have ignored this legal principle is baffling.

"The claim of self-defense of respondents Bantas and Langalen is totally nonsense, even comical. In light of the medico-legal report on the victim Tamano Kamendan showing that practically all his bullet wounds, several of them, were at his back, the claim of self-defense is incredible", the motion said.

"All the events that transpired which led to the killing of Tamano Kamendan are in harmony with the story of Natividad Kamendan that respondent Mangudadatu ordered respondents Bandas and Langalen to shoot and kill her husband," it added.

It said "what is unforgivable is the prosecutors' ignoring of damning evidence against its client respondent Mangudadatu. It is deplorable the way veteran prosecutors handled the preliminary investigation insofar as respondent Mangudadatu is concerned, particularly regarding their decision to clear him of the charge of Murder and wittingly ignoring direct evidence of lies coming from his very mouth and inconsistencies in his evidence and those of his witnesses as against attribution by the panel of speculation they made upon complainant's evidence."

The murder case filed against Langalen and Bantas were earlier raffled off to RTC Branch 16.

They were charged with murder for the death of Kamendan inside the Gaisano South Citimall on February 11.

Mangudadatu was earlier dismissed from the case for lack of evidence. (RMH)