The burden of proof

There’s an old adage that says: “If you point an accusing finger at anyone, there are three more fingers pointing back at you.” To illustrate, try to point your forefinger at any object and you will notice that three more fingers starting from your index finger are folded and seemed to point back at you.

It is easy to accuse someone of wrongdoing but it is hard to prove. Under the rule of law, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There is also an explicit provision in the Constitution that guarantees due process. Thus, a trial is conducted to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused through evidence presented by the accuser in the court of law.

Since justice is this country is very slow to grind, there are individuals who take the law into their own hands. But this practice is contrary to the norms and statutes of a civilized society. It is a primitive practice that goes back to prehistoric age where man is subjected to the so-called survival of the fittest. It has no more place in a modern and democratic society.

Under the present dispensation, it seems we are going back to the primitive ways. It has the propensity to bend the rules to suit their whims and caprices of the powers-that-be. There seems to be a de facto military rule where the accused is proven guilty and has to prove his innocence later. This is plain and simple travesty of justice.

If we follow the rules of court, it is the accuser who should present evidence to show his guilt and the not the accused to prove his innocence. It will result to trial by publicity wherein the accused is condemned in public, his reputation ruined, including his family, and what if he is proven to be innocent later? Does the government indemnify the victim of the moral damages afflicted to the innocent victim of injustice?

The burden of proof goes to the accuser and not the accused. It’s common sense, man.

Rene F. Antiga

Banilad, Mandaue City