THE ESCAPE HATCH: BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

 

A few days ago, in one of the Senate Blue Ribbon hearings, Sen. Kiko vented his frustration with our justice system, citing the Napoles case. “Siguro kung yung Napoles cases nauwi sa imbes na absuelto ay kulong, baka hindi na nangyari itong mas malaking kurakot.”

In my blog, “The Napoles Template,” I mentioned the most likely defense of the principal accused: BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, particularly in the cases filed by the Ombudsman that constitute Plunder. The concept of reasonable doubt is arguably the most fundamental safeguard in the criminal justice system, and in my opinion, it can be rightly characterized as the "escape hatch" for the many politicians who are soon to be accused and tried.

Former CJ Sereno, in one of her speeches, said, “The decision of the Sandiganbayan a few days ago, acquitting Senator Bong Revilla of the charge of plunder that encapsulates the most recent legal abomination that has been created in the last two years. It is a dagger stroke to the heart of justice.” The ponente who wrote the controversial decision is currently the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, who, according to news, is pursuing the position of Ombudsman. The accused was acquitted of plunder, but in the civil case decision, he has to pay Million together with the guilty partners. The former Senator has not paid. His defense: “Acquitted ako.” Will the justice handling the case please rule on this “abominable decision!”

The original ponente of this case was Justice Efren de la Cruz. He wrote the dissenting opinion. He argued that “it would have been impossible for Revilla not to know the elaborate scheme of Napoles and Cambe because the two needed him to gain access to the money. It is 'ludicrous,' he said, if Revilla allowed Napoles and Cambe alone to benefit from the funds.”

“Sandigan” is a powerful declaration in Pinoy lingo. It is understood by all. When a Filipino tells you, “Ikaw ang aking Sandigan,” it means, “I rely on you; you are my last resort.” Such a very appropriate name for this honorable court, “The Sandiganbayan.” Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan himself cited the conviction rate, attributing the data directly to the Sandiganbayan's own reports, simply stating, “1 out of 2 cases end up being dismissed or acquitted.” Tunay ba na Sandiganbayan? Abangan?

Ipinakita po noong dalawang hukom kung gaano ka-imposible na hindi alam ni Ginoong Revilla ang pagdedeposito ng sa kaniyang account na kumbaga si Cambe lang po at Napoles ay nagkuntsaba para ideposito yung pera nang hindi alam ni Ginoong Revilla. Medyo mahirap po ’yung paniwalaan,” Sereno said in an interview with reporters after her speech.

Today, I received a strong message from our group chat of high school classmates, a strong message addressed to officials of the Executive and Legislative branches of Government, signed mostly by retired officers of the AFP. My comment: Congrats to everyone who signed. The letter is addressed only to politicians, but can we still rely on the Judiciary (SC/SB) to deliver fearless justice? Revisiting the Napoles scam acquittal is crucial. Plunder is hard to prove under the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If the prosecution leaves any reasonable doubt—even a tiny one—tapos na ang boksing: Acquitted.

The Takeaway: The frustration lies in the gap between public perception and the strict legal process. What to do? Common sense suggests this needs fixing: If the money is proven stolen, why is the politician acquitted?

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Minalin Rising: Discovering the Filipino-Spanish Charm of Minalin Sunset Park

Family Pictorial: Capturing Love

Too Much Happiness? A Reminder from My Sister