Proof beyond reasonable doubt

It is better for 10 guilty persons to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted. This is a legal dictum in criminal law and in criminal procedure. No person should be deprived of her life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Neither shall any person be denied equal protection of law. But all this is easier said than done.

Imagine that Senator Leila de Lima has suffered for six years even after she was acquitted in two of her three cases and still continues to suffer because of a third case which depends on the same set of facts. The son of the Justice secretary, accused of a related crime, was exonerated and released in less than one year. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the judge there’s no other reasonable conclusion that can come from the evidence presented at trial.

Hubert Webb and his co-accused were convicted in the Vizconde massacre case. On June 30, 1991, Carmela Vizconde a 19-year old girl was raped and murdered along with her mother Estrellita and seven-year old sister Jennifer. The conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of Jessica Alfaro. On January 4, 2000, Judge Amelita Tolentino convicted the accused and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. But on December 14, 2010, the Supreme Court en banc acquitted Hubert Webb and his co-accused due to reasonable doubt due to alleged mishandling of evidence.

The justices who signed the ruling were then chief justice Renato Corona and associate justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Antonio Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, and Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

The decision was written by my fellow UST Law Professor Justice Roberto Abad. But Justice Martin Villarama issued a well-written dissenting opinion. I regret that the High Court acquitted the accused despite the unrebutted eyewitness testimony of Alfaro and co-witnesses. The court was too solicitous of the rights of the accused and might have forgotten the anguish of victims' loved ones. Mang Lauro Vizconde, our neighbor in BF Homes Parañaque, lost his wife and two daughters. He was left alone and later he died broken-hearted. But cases are decided not based on emotions but on the principles of law and evidence.

This was in the case of Antonio Lejano vs. People and People vs. Hubert Jeffrey Webb (GR 176389 and 176864). The High Court held: "In our criminal justice system, what is important is not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth". The Supreme Court entertained doubt on the guilt of the accused. And the doubt was considered by the majority of the justices as reasonable.

In People vs. Marcos (GR L-47388), Justice Jose P. Laurel, former Philippine president, acquitted Ferdinand Marcos Sr. for the murder of Congressman Julio Nalundasan. Marcos, his father Mariano, and his uncle Pio were accused of murder. Ferdinand and Quirino Lizardo were convicted. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Avancena, and justices Imperial, Diaz, and Hormillano. Laurel held: "By and large, we find the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo to be inherently improbable and full of contradictions in important details. For this reason, we decline to give him any credit. In view of this conclusion, we find it neither necessary nor profitable to examine the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. Where the principal and basic evidence upon which the prosecution rests its case fails, all evidence intended to support or corroborate it must likewise fail."

Therefore, the court said guilt wasn’t established based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court didn’t say no crime was committed, much less that the accused didn’t do it. All it said was that it had reasonable doubt. That means the defense counsel was smarter than the prosecutor.

Not all cases are decided based on truth, many of them were resolved on tricks and strategies. It’s important that judges shouldn’t only be competent and honest. They must be conscientious and wise.