In my more than 34 years as a Court Legal Researcher, I have encountered thousands of cases assigned to me for writing “statements of facts” including the corresponding punishments in the event of conviction in criminal cases. More often than not, the judge would render a judgment of acquittal against the accused(s) for failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The ‘failure’ is not the fault of the prosecutor per se but of the complainant witnesses who failed to appear during trial or to produce the material evidence needed to pin down the accused(s).
I remember one case of homicide with the use of a bladed weapon. There was a full-blown trial but the prosecutor failed to present the knife during the formal offer of evidence. So, what happened? The judge acquitted the accused because absent the evidence, the case has no leg to stand on. It is elementary that in criminal cases, what is needed to convict the accused(s) is proof beyond reasonable doubt, meaning the slightest doubt shall be resolved strictly in favor of the accused. If the judge would do otherwise, chances are, the decision shall only be reversed in the appellate court.
In another case of homicide that happened in the public market of Los Banos, Laguna in the mid-80s if my memory serves me right, the accused was acquitted on reasonable doubt after the late EJ Joselito J. dela Rosa conducted an ocular inspection of the place at the exact time the crime was allegedly committed. The Court saw that the market was totally dark and it is highly improbable for the prosecution’s sole witness to see and identify the witness.
Watching trials in open court is like watching suspenseful telenovelas because you can see the demeanor of witnesses, the brilliance of the defense counsel, the intelligence of the prosecutor and the wisdom of the presiding judge in making a ruling in case of objection from the opposing parties.
It is during trial that interested on-lookers would appreciate the beauty of the law and the art of cross-examination. One of the best criminal lawyers I personally saw cross-examining the prosecution witness was a certain Col. Ocampo of the AFP, who sadly I forgot the first name. After an exhaustive direct examination by the prosecutor, he asked only two questions enough to destroy the credibility of the witness thus securing acquittal of his client.
Just lately, the social media was inundated by a barrage of different opinions and comments regarding the alleged participation of suspended BuCor Chief Ronald Bantag in the Percy Lapid case. In my very personal observation, there are many loopholes and ambiguities in the report that can be utilized to create reasonable doubt that will acquit Gen. Bantag. All he needs is a brilliant criminal lawyer who is an expert in the art of cross examination to debunk the testimonies of the witnesses against him.
Melinda Bagsic Evangelista
I was born to write and I believe that’s my calling. I love writing because it brings me to the realm exclusively of mine. It is also my opinion that “immortality” can be achieved not by searching for the Holy Grail and drinking from it but by living your life worth-writing or writing something worth-reading. Since I cannot promise you a life worth-writing, I keep myself busy writing something worth-reading. I am thankful to God for giving me the talent and skill to see life in different perspectives not seen by many and the courage to share it to my readers. This first ever Tutubi Digital News Magazine is a perfect avenue to bring you the many facets of life that you can ponder upon in this time of the pandemic. Enjoy reading all the articles.
