Much was said and insinuated about how Fiscal Resado could have been bribed out of filing the case. For his part, Resado also got some primetime airtime to explain the legal and factual infirmities that led him to dismiss the case because it wouldn't stand trial anyway. After everything, I think most everyone is missing the point. And it is one which, when pursued and answered, would render everything else--related controversies, accessory accusations and ancillary questions--moot and academic.
The only real and important issue here is this: "Whether or not, in acting as he did, Fiscal Resado fulfilled his mandate in his capacity as a state prosecutor representing the Republic of the Philippines." In short, did he do his job?
The Philippine justice system may not be perfect, but it is so engineered to ensure that all parties get access to the courts and the higher interest of justice is ultimately served. In this scheme of things, the state prosecutors, who are under the Department of Justice, play an instrumental role. They are the ones that set the wheels of justice in motion. And when the judicial mechanism starts to grind, as when the case has been successfully filed before the court, the prosecutors' job continues. They represent the state throughout the litigation and work to ensure that the interest of the state and the general public is upheld via a conviction.
This peculiar role is of utmost importance in criminal cases. In every crime, the party in interest (the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the results of the case) is necessarily the state, which is why every criminal case is prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. This is so because every crime is deemed to be an affront to the state and a violation of public order. The interest of the state is in fact bigger than that of the private party who was actually injured. In a criminal litigation, the injured party is reduced to being a witness for the prosecution, such that a criminal case can go on in his absence and a conviction can be had if other substantial evidence warrants the same. In criminal cases, every conviction is a victory of the state.
It is thus easy to see which side of the scale state prosecutors should be in. And it becomes more apparent why, in deciding which cases should be filed on behalf of the state, state prosecutors are only required to ascertain "probable cause" and not "guilt beyond reasonable doubt," which properly pertains to the courts.
"Probable cause" is nothing more than a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test of probable cause is whether or not, on the strength of the personal knowledge of the complainant or officer of the facts and circumstances, there exists grounds sufficient for a reasonably prudent man to believe that the person has committed an offense and should be brought to trial.
On the other hand, "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" is the highest level of proof, and the onus probandi required in criminal cases to secure a conviction. As such, more than mere personal knowledge, it is a highly a matter of evidence.
A team of drug enforcement experts, in the exercise of their official duties, were able to apprehend a group allegedly in the act of committing the high crime of selling dangerous drugs. Now, somebody tell me which part of the definition of "probable cause" the prosecutors handling the curious case of the Alabang Boys did not understand.
There may, or they may not have been irregularities in the gathering of evidence, but these are best left to the courts to rule on, based on the quantum of evidence that the law requires them to employ. Last time I checked, public officers in this jurisdiction still enjoy the legal presumption of regularity (i.e., public officers in their exercise of their official functions are presumed to have performed their duties regularly). Pieces of evidence to the contrary are rightly for judges and justices to examine in the light of this presumption, and not for the state's lawyers to use to defeat the avowed public purpose of: "safeguard[ing] the integrity of its territory and well-being of its citizenry, particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being, and to defend the same against acts or omissions detrimental to their development and preservation," giving rise to the need "to enhance further the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs, it being one of today's more serious social ills." (Section 2, RA 9165)
I have been trying not to end this in a spiritual tone. But I find that when you're fed up and resigned to the fact that in this part of the world, people can do the worst things and get away with it--over and over again--you find yourself turning to God. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many Senate hearings you survive or how many times you're vindicated in your lifetime. What matters is how God will judge you by nothing more than your conscience when your time is up.
I can almost hear Him say:
18 comments:
Fine. You can be spiritual with it and involve God for all I care but, lady, let me remind you that the so-called 'technicalities' is necessary in judging whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed. RA 9165 is a harsh law where mere possession can mean life imprisonment. The technicalities built into RA 9165 is the only defense helpless and innocent civilians can shield against overzealous PDEA agents doing a game called 'headcount'for their accomplishment report (and justify PDEA's PhP400 million budget). No less than Santiago admits 'farming' evidence for characters he judged as guilty. Try to be spiritual about that next time you wax theological.
@Anonymous: Thanks for reading my post. God bless you.
To the Anonymous blogger who just commented here I think that before you comment on matters of law you should know first what you are talking about. Any complaint filed by the fiscal should be based only on probable cause. The fiscal need not delve into the evidentiary matters of a case, that is for the courts to determine. The protection of technicalities are to be raised in courts which has the proper authority to decide whether or not the accused is guilty.
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is , or maybe, well founded. It does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import actual certainty. It is merely based on opinion and belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.( Pilapil vs. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349)
Probable cause is, simply stated, that there is reason to believe that the accussed, more likely than not, did commit the crime.
Every Lawyer knows this fact.
The fiscals knew that they were playing judges by dismissing the case of the alabang boys.
Well, I guess nothing is impossible when you have millions of drug money rammed down your throat.
The fiscals know this. This is what they do.
Now that you know what a fiscals job is maybe you should think twice before siding with Raul Gonzalez.
If you still don't understand what a fiscal's job is here's a hint-
They are called PROSECUTORS not defense counsel's or judges.
What amuses me is that there are still people who believe Raul and his ilk.
After all the greed that this country has been through that is outright unbelievable!
Yup! I totally agree.
It's not like the filing of the complaint mean's that a person is guilty.
Duh..There's still a trial remember?
Maybe the guy who commented is a regular of the alabang boys.
Kawawa ka naman wala ka nang pusher!haha!
I can almost imagine them saying " my god what do we do now we have to get our ecstasy on the riles ng train!"
P400 million ang budget ng PDEA. Ang bribe sa fiscal ay P50 million. That's 12% of the annual budget of PDEA per fiscal per "transaction". Ibig sabihin ang fiscals would have more cause to be eager beavers than the PDEA people dahil ang P400 million paghahati-hatian pa nila at patatagalin ng isang taon! Wahahaha!
What the fiscals did was beyond their authority. They are not the one's that should determine the guilt of the accused.
The "technicalities built in RA 9165" would still serve their purpose but it will only come into play during the actual trial.
This is so elementary, I can't believe this is the matter of debate.
Any fiscal is not empowered to rule on the guilt of the accused. His sole job is to determine probable cause.
They were not doing their job. They were doing someone else' job.
And one more thing, what's so wrong with putting God in the picture?
With the way this country is being run- I say, God help us all.
Haha!
I'm loving this!
It's like criminal procedure 101!
Maybe you should stop the law lecture and let the guy buy his own damn book.
Here's a little tip for you son, before you open your mouth make sure you know enough unless you want make a fool of yourself.
Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It's really bad taste to diss someone's else' blog.
If you have a point to make just write it on your own blog.
Whooah! People are missing the point BIG TIME! I'm not a lawyer but ain't it common sense that a prosecutor must first be convinced that a crime was committed before filing a case? I gather you are saying that that ain't so, that prosecutors should just file cases brought to them - even if one is not convinced as to its merits? I guess if you have your way, you would give PDEA its own prosecution service. When you have a draconian measure like RA 9165 wielded by overzealous characters, who needs martial law?
So let's do away with preliminary investigations, file the case and right away lock all those arrested, even the innocents.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Tsk tsk.
Oh Man can't you read?
Let me spell it out for you.
This is how it's supposed to work.
You file a complaint right.
Your complaint alleges this and that.
The fiscal looks at the facts you stated and then compares it to the law thats applicable.
He doesn't determine strength of evidence.
If the elements of the crime match that of your complaint then he files a case.
That is how it works.
That is the law.
That is not my opinion only.
Now, after that the complainant and the defendant present their evidence to prove their case.
That's when technicaliies and strength of evidence is threshed out.
Don't you know how hard it is to convict someone on a criminal charge?
It needs guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
That means that if doubt is raised even on a single piece of evidence or testimony the accused walks free.
More likely than not the alabang boys would have walked free son.
But it's the job of the courts to determine that not the fiscal.
And do you know who is supposed to protect the interests of the complainant, i.e rape victim, etc.?
Its the prosecutors.
The persons who are now defending the accused.
Now why do you think that is?
Going back, i reiterate that filing a case doesn't men squat.
It's the trial proper that maters.
Ironically the reason why this boys are still locked up is because they stirred up a legal question that needs to be resolved first before anyone can make a move-release them.
If the case has been allowed to prosper they could have easily moved for the dismissal of the case.
And in all honesty I think the judge would have granted that.
The point of the blog is ,which apparently you missed, is that why are the prosecutors going out of their way doing the work of judges.
IT'S NOT THEIR JOB.
DO YOU GET THAT?
Everyone knows this, except you.
Read the comments.
You might learn a thing or two about the criminal justice system.
Now kid I suggest you shut your pie hole before you embarrass yourself further by your stupidity.
Nobody's missing the point kid.
Your'e just so incredibly ignorant.
The fiscal only needs to find probable cause in order to file a case.
You do know what that is right?
That's what the law mandates boy.
It's not our opinion that a fiscal only needs to find probable cause.
It's the law.
Heck, I'm a fiscal and i,m filing a case right now.
I'm not judging the accused.
I'm just doing my job because it's what is incumbent upon me.
It is the Judges job to determine guilt.
It is the Defense Lawyer's job to see to it that the accused is defended.
When everyone does their job assigned to them the truth will come out and justice will be served.
Whether it be for the plaintiff or the defendant.
What my paneros did was beyond their authority.
What the heck is this guy's problem?
I mean why would you diss sommeone else' blog?
Hindi ito public forum!
If you have something to say go write your own damn blog!
I agree.
Personal blog to.
D nga ito forum on the alabang boys.
This guy's a freekin moron!
Nakapanood ka lang ng TV akala mo na alam mo na ang batas.
Pinakita mo lang kung gano ka katanga!
Talagang d makaintindi tong mokong na to.
Sinasabi na nga kung ano yung batas e opinion daw natin yun.
Bobo.
Haha! I think this guy has a really big problem.
Nangaaway ng me blog.
E di magsulat ka na lang ng sarili mong blog!
Free speech asshole!
#1 Yes. The fiscal needs to determine if a crime was indeed commited but he needs only to use probable cause. (see definition above)
#2 I read the others comments and nobody said that the fiscal should summarily file cases only that he should do so based on probable cause and not to delve into technicalities.
#3 Mere possession of drugs is punishable because it is malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum means it is wrong because it is prohibited by law. It is quite common. Parking violations, possesssion of firearms during election period, tax laws etc.
Here intent is not needed.
#4 Nobody is giving PDEA its own prosecution service. The prosecutors just need to stay within the boundaries of its authority which they did by delving into the admissibility of evidence and the like. These are to be determined during the actual trial.
# 5 Preliminary investigations again only compare the allegations of the complaint and the law.
example: complaint said Juan killed Jose.
Law states it is illegal for one person to kill another.
and there is evidence to support that( evidence to support probable cause only )
Then the fiscal has no choice but to file the complaint.
Thats it.
Its ministerial on his part.
It is for the court to determine the guilt and evidence.
# 6 If a fiscal delves into determining the technicalities then he blatantly usurps the job of the judge.
That is how the law works and
That, my dear Watson, is the point.
You're right it is just common sense- and you surely convinced everyone that you lack it.
And one more thing,
If you surf around the web messing other people's blog be sure you know what you're talking about.
They are right.To me that is like Cyber-vandalism.
Go put your opinions in your own blog.
Instead of making a fool of yourself.
Post a Comment