Consistent with innocence

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated October 29, 2010

As the “court of last resort”, the Supreme Court (SC) renders decisions with the binding force of law on all controversies or disputes brought before it “involving rights that are enforceable and demandable in our courts of justice or involving the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights”.

This is a basic democratic principle that has oftentimes provoked some people to comment with levity, that a Supreme Court ruling has no more “appeal”.

But levity aside, the SC here is just performing its duty and exercising its power of “judicial review” granted by our Charter to uphold the “rule of law” on which any democratic and republican State is founded. This means that when the SC resolves a controversy or a case whether civil or criminal, no other authority, not even the President, can review, reverse, modify or question it anymore even if they believe it is, or seems to be, wrong.

Be that as it is, the principle is also fraught with certain risk. For, like any imperfect human institution composed of individual justices who are likewise imperfect, despite their supposed wisdom and erudition, the SC is also liable to commit mistakes in its judgment. And since said judgment cannot be appealed or questioned anymore, there is a strong likelihood that an irreversible and grave injustice or a miscarriage of justice may nevertheless happen especially in criminal cases where the very life or liberty of a person is at stake.

To be sure, adequate measures have been established by the Charter itself to avoid such injustices. Foremost of these are the provisions on “due process of law”, both substantive, which give everybody a sporting chance to a fair hearing; and procedural, which gives individuals all the necessary steps to be heard, starting from the lower courts where cases are tried on the merits to elicit the facts and apply the law; then to a higher appellate court for review and correction or reversal of the possible errors of law and fact, until it reaches the SC which will further sift through the findings of the lower courts for search of other mistakes that may have been overlooked. Indeed, “due process” in this jurisdiction is extensive and thorough enough to avoid or minimize the occurrence of injustice or miscarriage of justice.

Nevertheless, sometime in 2002, the SC further realized that the loophole for human errors in making decisions could further be plugged by the use of scientific methods as part of “due process”. Thus in the case of People vs. Vallejo (G.R. 144656, May 9, 2002) the SC formally and finally recognized the use of DNA evidence and laid down the standards to be considered in assessing its probative value especially in the criminal justice system. Then on October 15, 2007, the “Rule on DNA Evidence”, submitted by the Sub-Committee on Evidence of the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, created by former Chief Justice Puno, took effect. This rule was based on the proposal of the Chancellor of the Judicial Academy, Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera on November 3, 2006.

DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid or the chain of molecules in every nucleated cell of the body which is unique in its totality for each individual. DNA evidence constitutes the totality of genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person (DNA profile). DNA testing is the verified and credible scientific method of extracting DNA from biological samples, generating DNA profiles and the comparing the information obtained for purposes of determining with reasonable certainty whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more biological samples originate from the same person (direct identification) or from related persons (kinship analysis). (Section 3)

DNA testing may be ordered by the court at any time during the pendency of the case after due notice and hearing upon showing among others that it has the scientific potential to produce new information relevant to the proper resolution of the case (Section 4). Post conviction DNA testing is also available provided that (a) a biological sample exists; (b) such sample is relevant to the case; and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction (Section 5).

The SC, in the case People vs. Webb et.al., apparently used this new Rule on DNA Evidence to grant Webb’s request for DNA testing last April 2010. Actually Webb also asked the Regional Trial Court for such DNA testing but it was denied. Unfortunately, the analysis cannot be conducted anymore because the Prosecution and the NBI could no longer produce the biological samples. Hence the SC said that it will just have to resolve case on the basis of the existing evidence formally offered by the parties.

Obviously the SC initially granted Webb’s request for DNA testing to give him “due process” to its fullest extent or to remove all doubts still existing on the case especially because of the numerous documentary and testimonial evidence presented by Webb proving that he left the country on March 9, 1991 and came back only on October 26, 1992, so that he could not have committed the crime which happened on June 29-30, 1991. The RTC convicted Webb and disregarded his alibi only because a certain Jessica Alfaro volunteered to act out the role of an eyewitness, and tagged him as the culprit.

Since the DNA testing could not be conducted anymore, it appears that Webb was not fully afforded “due process” or the SC’s doubts have not been fully removed. In such a case, jurisprudence says that when the existing evidence can be interpreted either way, one consistent with the guilt or another consistent with the innocence of the accused, the latter should prevail. Will the SC rule this way? Abangan.

*      *      *

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net