With
Due Respect
By Artemio
V. Panganiban
Judicial
decision-making, I wrote last Sunday, may be reduced in its simplest
terms to an Aristotelian syllogism. Most of the time, the crucial
part of the syllogism is the minor premise—that is, whether the
facts alleged in the complaint or information have been duly proven.
Search
for truth. As shown in many sensational criminal cases, the search
for facts—yes, for the truth—can be extremely difficult,
time-consuming and often frustrating. For example, three years ago on
Nov. 23, 2009, 58 civilians—mostly media members—were gunned
down, abused and “back-hoed” in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao.
Normally,
when a criminal case involves only one crime and one suspect, the
trial is simple and the Aristotelian syllogism is easy to apply.
However, in the Maguindanao massacre, 196 suspects—led by former
Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan, patriarch of the powerful Ampatuan
clan—were indicted by the Department of Justice.
Of
the 196 indicted, only 98 have been arrested, and only 78 of those
arrested have been arraigned. Having been charged with capital
offenses, the accused are all detained (or jailed) pending trial.
Exercising their constitutional right to independent counsel, they
retained more than 20 sets of lawyers. The first thing lawyers do in
capital offenses is to petition for bail. Each petition for bail, and
there are 56 of them pending, is opposed by the prosecution and must
be patiently heard by the judge.
During
the hearings for bail, witnesses are examined. And with each new
arrest, prosecution witnesses are recalled and examined anew given
that every accused and his/her lawyers are entitled to confront and
cross-examine the witnesses. During these bail hearings, as in every
stage of the trial, facts are proven by testimonial and documentary
evidence.
Judges
and prosecutors. Despite the best effort of the prosecution, the
Ampatuan murder cases are hamstrung by many questions raised by
defense lawyers before the trial judge, and sometimes elevated to the
appellate courts. Normally, appeals are made only after judgments on
the merits have been rendered, but many enterprising defense counsels
file certiorari petitions contesting interlocutory rulings of trial
judges in appellate courts.
In
the Maguindanao cases, defense lawyers have questioned the propriety
of discharging some accused to testify as state witnesses, or of
presenting evidence allegedly procured after the killings have
occurred, or of the nonexclusion of witnesses while others were
testifying. They also repeatedly move for a re-determination of
probable cause. Given the many accused and their equally numerous
lawyers, these issues can at times irritate and exasperate.
Fortunately,
the presiding judge in these cases, Jocelyn Solis-Reyes, is both
courageous and patient. She has a well-deserved reputation for
competence and uprightness. Normally, due to clogged dockets, cases
are heard only once a month. But because of the complexities and
technicalities of these cases, Judge Reyes was relieved of all her
other loads.
Now,
she concentrates her full time to these cases. Mondays she devotes to
hearing various motions, Tuesdays to prosecution complaints, and the
rest of the week to pending petitions for bail and to the “evidence
in chief” of the prosecution. Only after the prosecution has rested
its evidence will the defense attorneys have their turn.
Despite
being devoted and well-meaning, the judge cannot push the cases
faster without the cooperation of the parties and without violating
due process. Last month, the prosecution, which has already seen a
change of its lead prosecutor twice, finished presenting its evidence
opposing the petition for bail of the principal accused, Andal
Ampatuan Jr. But it has to present its evidence in the main cases
more speedily, given that it lined up 292 witnesses but has been able
to call to the stand only 98 thus far.
I
know that the work of the prosecutors is exacting and demanding. As I
wrote in an earlier column, they have to transport witnesses from
Maguindanao to Quezon City, interview them via interpreters as most
of them speak neither English nor Filipino, and “persuade” them
to testify, given their families’ vulnerability in their remote,
insecure hometowns. Still, they must hurry up.
Long
wait. Time has a way of warping justice, of making witnesses “forget”
or lose interest, or become easy prey to corruption, undue influence
and even to killing. They can one day “disappear” or be strangely
inaccessible. Documents can be misplaced or destroyed.
To
be fair, let us remember that the accused are detained and deserve
speedy justice, too. They have constitutional rights to due process,
to be presumed innocent till proven guilty, and to defend themselves
with every weapon allowed by law. The prosecution is required to
prove beyond reasonable doubt their specific participation, so the
judge can determine their criminal liability and impose the proper
penalty for each of them, or acquit them.
The
Ampatuan murder cases will take many more years of waiting. They will
have many more twists and turns, jolts and surprises. I will continue
to monitor and report on them as my small contribution to the public
weal. A conviction of one or more of the accused is appealable to the
Court of Appeals, and eventually to the Supreme Court. These
monumental cases will test our faith in the rule of law and in
assuring justice even though the heavens may fall.
*
* *
Comments
to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment