The House inquiry on the resolution of dismissal by the DOJ of the trumpeted drug pushing of scions of well –connected families has assumed from the first day of its investigation as a comedy to a total tragedy and the victims are the Alabang Boys.
If the resolution of dismissal by Prosecutor John Resado is overturned by DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales and the case is finally filed in Court, the judge would be in tremendous pressure to convict the accused even if after looking into the evidence he is convinced that it was indeed the “fruit of a poisonous tree” (hence inadmissible) because of the revelations already made Mr. Dave Brodette and his son that the other Brodette Family was indeed involved in drug pushing.
The judge’s acquittal would be perceived by the public as a whitewash and the magistrate in the pockets of the drug syndicate. With the public growing discontent over the corruption in the courts, the PDEA and the DOJ, it is too easy to draw the conclusion that everything was for a “show” and for more “money” extortion.
It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t proposition.
This article is not passing any judgment of the guilt or non-guilt of the respondents for my opinion here is entirely irrelevant. But to parade the respondents in public and conduct a hearing bordering on the merit of the case is a classic case of “mob-lynching”. I don’t have any sympathy for the respondents, and in fact they can rot in jail for all I care but what I am after is the fairer application of the law which the public sometimes try to look at from purely white and black dimension. It is understandable for the public to conclude that the evidence of guilt was found and therefore the accused should be found guilty. But the manner of how this evidence was gathered is part of the determination of that guilt.
The doctrine of “fruit of poisonous tree” was not devised for the Alabang Boys’ protection. It was devised to protect the innocent and it is only incidental that the doctrine would also protect the guilty. The name fruit of the poisonous tree is a metaphor, meaning the evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation.
The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.
This doctrine would prevent the PDEA officers from planting evidence against the innocent and used that evidence to convict the innocent. Thus there is a requirement that a search warrant signed by the judge before a search or seizure is made by the PDEA operatives. (Though the PDEA in the
case of the Alabang Boys, claimed that the situation calls for warrantless arrest and seizure, this position has also a constitutional construct or layout).
From this very noble and judicious legal craftsmanship to promote our civil liberties, we unwittingly extend the benefit to the knaves and the guilty. We can understand any public’s outrage for the dismissal of the case against the criminals for that is what our moral construct was made up.
But we can mitigate our outrage with a reminder from John Adamson’s defense of the British soldiers for murdering Americans:
“We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English Judges, who have been the brightest of mankind;—we are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it is of more importance to the community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever.
Contributing Writer: Jose C Camano
Popularity: 1% [?]
Spot on JCC sir.
BTW good of you to honor FV with this full piece.
As expected…a very good piece from JCC
:)
JCC,
I don’t understand why the prosecutor shelve the case when they could have capitalize on the warrantless arrest thingy..Something is fishy..
Juwan_D,
Tired trolling around (this is a compliment you know).
kape tayo sa starbucks :)
Lurker_Lang,
Indeed it is…cant ignore that fact.
Am not tired of trolling around…because I wasnt trolling around :)
are you?
yoko sa starbucks..mahal dun…pang black and white movement lang mga kape dun…bwihihihi
ding, Juwan_D,
thanks. :)
Lurker,
The prosecutor is always in a carbird seat of power which everyone envies when high-profiled cases are assigned to him. He can either dismiss a case or recommend it to be filed in Court. Both positions can be supported by an array of jurisprudence.
In recommending to file the case for trial all he has to do is o lift the arguments of the PDEA operatives and adopt it as his own and if the recommendation is for dismissal, he has to adopt the argument of the “Alabang Boys”.
There is nothing so fancy about this “to file or not to file” dilemma. It is all about predetermined predisposition and bias on account of what has been previously cooked-up or agreed upon in the “inner sancturum” of the higher ups.
But in my 19 years of practice, there were few distinguished and honorable prosecutors and judges that I have come to know. I have never met Prosecutor John Resado and therefore could not make any comment of whether he is one of the distinguished or one of the knaves.
i mean “catbird seat” :)
Mismo. The congressmen lynched John Resado based on the say-so of Dir. Santiago
i am only interested on the benefits of sending drug pushers to jail and how PDEA manages its operations to catch more drug pushers and its source using the three suspects and other suspects. PDEA can watch the movie ” gangs of new york” where DENZEL washington ( drug lord )got caught. His jail time was shorter when he provided information of the other druglords in new jersey and other areas of new york. ( negotiating information and plea bargaining)
If our drug enforcement agency and prosecuting judges only know the business side of this mess and the revenue that can be generated thru exchange of information to catch the big fish and its international source ,this country will be better . The big fish can pay more bribes, bail or confiscating their assets ( confiscating is the best legal way of accumulating revenue to our ailing drug agency) think about it. To catch the big fish , the small fish must be gathered in jail.
you guys can talk about it like an ocho ocho mentality :). the BIGGER PICTURE is to reduce crimes and illegal drug use that is now affecting our society especially the youth of this country.
jcc great blog and thank you.
leytenian,
My pleasure. :)
@jcc
i have a technical/legal question:
is bribery a crime? how do u prove this in a court?
do you need an actual transaction to take place? or merely an offer?
If an offer, how does one prove that the offer did in fact happen (and not fabricated)?
thanks, jcc.
why give these kind of cases to a rookie prosecutor in the first place? with all the media exposure and an opportunity to redeem its name, the DOJ dumped it on a rookie who summarily dismissed it? I can’t find the logic….
Lurker,
J. Resado is not entirely a rookie. He said in an interview that he had been prosecuting drug cases for 6 years and he wants out of drug cases because of this present brouhaha.
And assuming he is a rookie, with more reason that a high profile case which has already been cooked-up would be assigned to him because he could easily be made the fall-guy to take all the heat and flak if something untoward happened, i.e., the sudden interest of Congress on the case. The real back-door operators are shielded from the flak.
Observe the demeanor of Sec. Gonzales in Congress. He was furious about the dismissal and had indicated that it is still up for review.
Then observe him the next day after the hearing being interviewed by the media fuming mad about how Congres tried to meddle in the function of the DOJ and that the members of Congress were so arrogant even to point out the defective grammar in the resolution of dismissal made by J. Resado.
Observe his body language at the House hearing and his body language at his interviewe after the hearing and you could discern every possibility of duplicity and dishonesty. :)
That is politics for you Lurker. :)
GabbyD,
Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code Book Two defines two kinds of bribery: direct and indirect.
Like some crimes involving mens rea, (guilty mind) bribery has two stages, attempted and consummated. Other mens rea crime, like murder has another stage, frustrated.
A person who offers a promise, a gift, or present in exchange for a favor from a public official will be guilty of attempted bribery. If the official agrees to perform the act being requested, whether the act being requested constitute a crime or not, and regardless of whether the official had actually performed the requested act, the crime is consummated direct bribery. Both the official and the offeror are liable.
Indirect bribery where there is no favor being sought but the offer of gift is offered to the official by reason of his office.
Attempt is where the public official being offered a bribe refused the bribe. Only the offeror is guilty. Or where the official requested a bribe and the person asked did not come up with the bribe. Only the official is guilty of attempted bribery.
Attempt is very hard to prove because it is a question of “my word against your word”. On occasion where third parties overheard the offer, still the issue would be credibility. But a good judge can discern which one is spewing garbage by observing the body language of the witness on the witness stand, her demeanor, spontaneity of the testimony and effective cross examination.
Consummated bribery is effectively prosecuted because the official being offered a bribe had tipped off the authorities and when the money/gift is handed to the official, the authorities would pounce on the offeror. Only the offeror is liable.
Sometimes the reverse could happen. The offeror had tipped off the authorities and would pounce on the official once the marked goods, most often wads of bills are handed to the official. Only the official is liable.
Listen well. RP is already tagged as the number 1 drug haven in Asia.
That simply means that nearly every family has a drug pusher/user living with them. And that equally implies there are more drugs at every home as there are even more in the market – if we go by supply and demand.
This being so, PDEA does not have to be war freak. It does not even make sense that it has to skip prescribed rules of procedure in a buy-bust, in an
entrapment, or whatever.
When you know you role is to pick upon every black stone in the beach where there are more black ones than white, why the haste? Why play the role of the defensive? Why pin another angle of bribery to an already dismissed case?
For a law to impose too severe a punishment in too common a crime, we have a legal landscape that has gone entirely schizophrenic!
Now, some quarters have pushed the matter to the wall – proposed a death penalty to come around when all the rest of the civilized world have already long abandoned it. Isn’t that crazy?