Harsh legal realities

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated December 20, 2010 

The Supreme Court’s (SC) verdict, as the “court of last resort” in a criminal case, simply and solely means that it has found the person/s accused of the crime either “guilty” or “not guilty”; “guilty” when the totality of the evidence on record shows that they committed the crime, and “not guilty” when such evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime. And this finding is final and in-appealable. This is the basic principle on which the rule of law is rooted.

In the Vizconde rape-slay case, the SC’s verdict on Webb and his alleged co-conspirators is, “not guilty”. This is clear and simple enough. It does not require further explanation or interpretation. By still explaining that the verdict “did not automatically mean that the six were innocent only that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt”, or that “the case is not really back to square one”, undermine the “finality” of the verdict. They also insinuate that all accused are presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. This is directly opposed to the constitutional principle that accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed, a careful reading of the decision in its entirety readily shows that the SC actually found Webb’s alibi worthy of belief as he was able to prove by credible testimonial and documentary evidence that he was in the U.S. West Coast when the crime happened. So the decision really means that Webb and his co-conspirators are innocent; that they did not, or could not have conspired to commit the crime.

It is likewise futile at this stage to assail the SC ruling as “wrong”, “unfair,” “unjust” or contrary to established facts. “Armchair” legal experts” airing their views and opinions averse to the ruling cannot move the SC to change its mind. It may only arouse public indignation that undermines the administration of justice. Worst still are the insinuations that some justices have been “bought”. These contemptuous allegations and expressions of “disgust” over our justice system erode the peoples’ trust and confidence in our courts.

Filing a motion for reconsideration of the SC decision is also a wrong move. Even if there are allegedly new witnesses who will corroborate Alfaro’s testimony that Webb and company allegedly committed the grisly crime, it is too late now to file that motion as it will place the accused in danger of punishment for the same offense which is a violation of the “double jeopardy” rule.

The cases cited by Vizconde’s new counsel, Atty. Acosta of PAO, as exceptions to the double jeopardy rule are not applicable here. Said cases, particularly the celebrated case of Ninoy Aquino’s assassination, refer to a decision of the trial court acquitting the accused which was void because there was no due process of law. There was no due process of law because the prosecution and the defense seemed to have connived in getting not guilty verdicts for the accused military men. In local parlance it was derisively called lutong Macoy, as in lutong macaw. Since the decision in said case was void it could not be said that the accused had already been acquitted as would place them in danger of punishment for the same offense if the case would be reconsidered by the trial court through a motion for reconsideration; and subsequently reviewed by the appellate court through a petition for certiorari.

In this case, the decision is rendered by the SC itself finding the accused “not guilty”. This decision is not void as there is no denial of due process here. Both sides freely and vigorously presented their case. And undoubtedly, it is already final. So reopening and reviewing the case again are no longer legally feasible because such moves will clearly place the accused in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

Hence the current reactions and moves of people sympathizing with and desiring to help Lauro Vizconde do not actually help him. On the contrary these are most unfair to him because they continue to nourish his erroneous belief that Hubert Webb and company killed his wife and daughters in 1991. They will further build in him false hopes that the SC can, and will, still reverse their “not guilty” verdict. They are just prolonging his agony and making the pain of further disappointments more unbearable.

Vizconde’s disappointment may really become more devastating because these moves may also stall the solution of the case. If a motion for reconsideration is filed, government investigators will have to wait again until such motion is resolved. It is thus possible that the remaining six months prescriptive period for the crime may expire before new charges can be filed. If that happens, Lauro Vizconde’s quest for truth and justice may reach a dead end which will be more heartbreaking and frustrating for him.

These harsh legal realities are pointed out not to favor any side but as a friendly advice especially to Vizconde whose grief and sorrow for loss of loved ones have been lingering for so long already. Maybe if he accepts these realities and just move on, his mental anguish and wounded feelings may gradually ease until he succeeds in his search. And his pursuit may even look brighter, if the Webb family will lend a hand and offer to help him. That would be a very magnanimous gesture on their part indeed.

E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net