Acquittal does not necessarily mean that one is innocent
The split decision (three for acquittal and two for conviction) by the Sandiganbayan, on the plunder charge against former senator Ramon “Bongbong” Revilla Jr., with all due respect, raises more questions instead of providing answers. How is it possible that the boss, into whose bank account more than P200 million was allegedly deposited, was acquitted, while the subordinate staff, Cambe, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment? Is it not a rule in conspiracy cases that the act of one is the act of all? Why is it that Revilla was ordered to return P124 million to the government, if it is true that he was innocent? Is it not an explicit provision in Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code that a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable?
In the Philippines, just like in some other countries, where the justice system is very far from being perfect, acquittal from a criminal charge is not totally and absolutely equal to the innocence of the accused. The reverse is likewise true: Conviction of a crime or a felony does not totally prove, much less indubitably establish, that the convict is really guilty of the crime charged. We concur with the opinion of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines president that Revilla’s acquittal was a big blow to this government’s drive against corruption in high places. And I likewise agree with Senator Panfilo Lacson that the acquittal was a step backward in the citizens’ crusade against the pork barrel system. The whole country today is abuzz with rumors that there are a lot of questionable issues on the matter.
Acquittal does not necessarily mean innocence because it could have been the result of the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe some vital witnesses were not presented, or that a number of very important and relevant documents with high probative value were not offered as evidence to the court, to prove the vital elements of the defense. Perhaps some vital pleadings and memoranda were not filed, or if filed, the filing was done beyond the reglamentary period. Or, it could be that the accused’s lawyers failed to interpose the correct objection to some critical incidents in the trial.
It is true that as a lifetime member of the IBP, this writer, just like all other lawyers, are committed to uphold the legal general rule that every act of the judiciary and the other agencies is presumed to be regular, legal, and in order, absent any palpable badges of irregularity. But in this case of Revilla, there are simply too many issues that emerge as crucial tipping point in the controversial decision between being regular and being irregular. The dissenting opinion of the presiding justice of the Court of Appeals and that of another member of the court is worth reading and appreciation. The IBP president’s opinion as well as the views expressed by Lacson are worth our time and efforts. We should read the dissent along with the majority opinion.
The people should be properly informed of developments in this very important case. The peoples’ respect for the judiciary should be carefully nurtured and preserved. Without a truly effective, honest, and fair judicial system, democracy shall slowly die.
- Latest
