IN CRIMINAL cases the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial or preponderance of evidence is not enough.
There are instances when forensic evidence does not complete the story. Gaps in evidence would have to be bridged with conjecture, assumptions and suppositions.
In that case a worthy judge will be compelled to acquit the accused on reasonable doubt.
***
A criminal can fill the gaps in the evidence with his testimony.
He admits the offense and turns against other people who committed the crime with him. His story will then help the State convict his associates or accomplices.
Philippine law therefore defines a “state witness” as any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State. He is admitted to the witness protection program on some conditions, among which are that he does not appear to be the most guilty, and that “he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.”
***
The Department of Justice filed drug trade cases against former senator Leila de Lima without the physical evidence to back them up.
There were no prohibited drugs, weighed or measured, that could be presented to buttress the corpus delicti for illegal drug trading. There was no money trail that would help support the conclusion that de Lima profited from the sale of illegal substances.
Anecdotal or testimonial evidence would have to be offered to justify de Lima’s detention pending trial of her criminal indictments.
***
Former DOJ Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre used the testimonies of convicted criminals serving time in Muntinlupa when he filed charges against de Lima.
They were classified as state witnesses despite the legal requirement that for a criminal to qualify for discharge he must not have had any prior conviction regarding a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
CIMT involve inherently base, vile or depraved conduct, contrary to the accepted rules of morality and duties owed “between persons or to society in general.”
***
Aguirre and Menardo Guevarra who succeeded him were made respondents in criminal and administrative charges that de Lima filed with the Ombudsman in 2018 for their alleged violations of the witness protection Act.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint outright, without even requiring Aguirre and Guevarra to respond to the charges.
The Court of Appeals voided the Ombudsman decision last week because it ignored due process of law.
***
According to the Court of Appeals, the Ombudsman had no valid reason to refuse conducting an investigation on de Lima’s administrative complaint against the two secretaries of the Department of Justice.
Its unjustified refusal to investigate “is contrary to its mandate under the law, and cannot be tolerated.”
The complaint was remanded to the Ombudsman for further investigation.
***
Guevarra, now the Solicitor General, is effectively under investigation by the Ombudsman.
Will he elevate the CA decision to the Supreme Court and risk a stinging rebuke for not rejecting but affirming his predecessor’s alleged abuse of the witness protection program in order to prop up the semblance of a case against de Lima?/PN
