hen does a person accused of a crime lose the Presumption of Innocence? It is a cherished democratic principle that a person accused of a crime must be “presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a Court of Law.” After the Makati Regional Trial Court ruled that an accused American service man was “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of raping” a Filipina woman in Subic Bay Freeport in 2005, it would seem reasonable and logical to believe that the so-called Presumption of Innocence has indeed been overcome in this case, and is no longer at issue on appeal. If this is true, then the Court of Appeals cannot conceivably “acquit” the accused-appellant on the basis that there is any “reasonable doubt” as to his guilt and may only reverse the RTC decision on some other technical, legal matters.
But take a look at the following Decision by the Court of Appeals in a similarly serious criminal case in which a lower RTC judgment is reversed by it, for what reason, and with what words…
Considering that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to acquit the appellant. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the January 21, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. C-68063 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellant ANALYN TERUEL y AMSON is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and her immediate RELEASE from prison is hereby ordered unless she is validly held for some other lawful cause/s. SO ORDERED.
Now how can that be if the Caloocan RTC had previously found the accused “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”? How can the Court of Appeals acquit the appellant on reasonable doubt unless her Presumption of Innocence is still largely intact at the appeals stage?
You will find the legal and juridical explanation by Justice Fernando in Has Daniel Smith Lost the Presumption of Innocence (2007) and in my widely controverted post that it is unethical to call the accused appellant a convicted rapist. Many now presume him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even before the Court of Appeals and beyond that, SCoRP, rules with finality that such guilt has indeed been established beyond a reasonable doubt. I am convinced by both the “theory” of Fernando and the just demonstrated “practice” of the Court of Appeals that this commonly held belief is erroneous.
I believe it is important for every Blogger of Filipino Voices to understand if I am right or wrong about this, because I have a feeling the “shoe will soon be on the other foot” — our foot — and we better know what we are talking about from now on…
Popularity: 3% [?]
marhay na aga man saimo, jcc.
a statute is created by the legislature in the exercise of its legislative power. procedural law is created by the judiciary under its inherent rule-making power. both have the force of law but one cannot infringe upon the other without violating the constitutional separation of powers.
having said that, it seems to me that your legal mind has been infected by what i may call djb’s creative lawyering. you keep on repeating that in the appeal process, the prosecution must still PROVE that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that the latter does not have to PROVE his innocence.
to “prove” means to establish the truth of a fact or hypothesis by satisfactory evidence (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed.) i have pointed out, time and again (and supported by abe, baycas, rom and others in this thread, i think), that there is no more presentation and acceptance of evidence on appeal because there is no more trial. the guilt of a convict is established “beyond reasonable doubt” at the trial and, again, the job of the appellate court (whether ca or sc), is to determine whether or not, looking at the record, the trial judge’s findings are sustainable.
insisting and regurgitating that the prosecution has the duty to “prove” something on appeal is erroneous and misleading to the average layman reading this blog. counsels’ arguments in the appellate courts are not “evidence” or “proof” of anything.
abe,
the accused has as a matter of right to bail in bailable offenses. it is immaterial whether that right is constitutional or staturory.
the discussion of the right to bail has no relevance on the presumption of innocence because that presumption will only be relevant during the trial and not during bail hearing.
where bail is refused because it is a non-baliable offense or the evidence of guilt is strong, his right to the presumption of innocence stays despite his being denied the right to bail. during hearing of capital offenses where bail has been denied, the prosecution still has the duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. this is but to highlight that bail issue is not related to the constitutional presumption of innocence.
i hope we are clear on that point.
where accused has been pronounced guilty by the trial court, my position is that presumption of innocence has been overcome only in the trial court. the appeal court will again will look for the “moral certainty” or “proof beyond reasonable doubt” that the convicted appellant committed the crime. any indicia of doubt is resolved in his favor and he is acquitted and the verdict is overturned.
i will toss back to you your own question of asking me for jurisprudence: “please give me one decision of the appellate court which says that inasmuch as the accused has lost the presumption because of his conviction of the trial court, the burden is now with him to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt or even by preponderance of evidence”.
NO, sir… the appeal court will always apply the same standard that it is the duty of the prosecution to established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, any evidence to the contrary will result to the acquittal of the accused.
That the “guilt of the accused is to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in every srage of the proceedings whether at trial or at appeal is my basis in saying that the presumption of innocence still holds and that the bail issue is not related to the discussion of the “presumption of innocence. They are two distinct legal animals in the legal system.
one cannot argue that authorities favor their position but rather they must seek the logic or wisdom of their position.
i think my reasoning is more lucid and logical than those authorities cited by abe.
bencard,
nice try at nitpicking.. the word “to prove” in my post did not mean “presenting oral, physical and documentary evidence” because you said that is available only at the trial court.
the phrase “for the prosecution to prove” the guilt of the accused beyoond reasonable doubt” on appeal means to point out to the appellate court that it has discharged the burden and found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt by citing the records of the case and its argument for sustaining the conviction.
bencard, no wonder you quarrel a lot with DBJ over meaningless semantics. :)
anyway, marhay na hapon saimo. :)
“After a person has been tried and convicted the presumption of innocence which may be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to show error in the conviction.” ABE,
Definitely, the presumption is rebutted, but only in the trial court.
“The burden is upon the accused to show the eror in the conviction”.
Read carefully Abe, the burden to show the error is never near “it is now the duty of the accused to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt”.
Burden to show error simply means that the accused is given the duty to point to the appeal court that the prosecution has been unable to discharge the burden to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the court has erred in agreeing with the prosecution.
You are seeing the semantics in the citation the way Bencard and Baycas were seeing it. And assuming there is substance in the semantics, try digesting them and and square it off with the principle that appeal court in order to sustain the conviction has to be convinced itself that the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
in law, each word has significance, jcc. that’s the difference between poetry or creative writing and the language of the law. you cannot have that cavalier attitude that the phrase “to prove” is just meaningless semantics, and still practice law. otherwise, you’re in the wrong profession.
review your own comments, if you may, e.g. @ 10:52pm (5th par.) “in no stage of the proceedings in the appeal the accused has the duty to PROVE his innocence beyond reasonable doubt, it is always the prosecution who has that burden”.
that duty to prove evidence beyond reasonable doubt even during the appeal simply means the prosecution is not discharge of its burden to point out to the appeall court that on the basis of the evidence, documentary, testimonial and forensic point to the irrebutable proof that the accused was guilty and the proecution has been discharged of its burden.
it has nothing to do with the actual presentation of the evidence because all the evidence have already been adduced at the trial. any lawyer who will read my post would read it to mean just like that.
but i will give it to you guys.. you were right and i was wrong if that would bring closure to this issue i consider a akin to “pissing” competition.
Folks,
This was (and still is) a highly theoretical question that was posed on a matter of fairly deep principle. Observing discussions on the Presumption of Innocence in other jurisdictions, which are also ongoing and seemingly interminable, we ought not feel too dismayed that we may not be able to attain closure ourselves. However, I think it would now be interesting to PRETEND we are Justices of the Cout of Appeals hearing the accused appellant’s case and stating how we ought to rule upon it and why.
If you were a member of the CA division hearing the appeal how would you vote? Guilty or Not Guilty of what crime? Affirm, Set Aside or Modify the RTC’s judgment and/or sentence?
“duty to prove evidence”. another “meaningless semantics”? i call it sloppy phraseology. you don’t “prove” evidence. evidence is proof that a statement is true or not true.
you see, jcc, it’s all about precision of language. fancy words and phrases, or smart cliches, are not necessary as long as the spirit and intent of the law, as well as its plain meaning, are expressed accurately. one cannot just brush aside the legal import of a word or phrase simply by dismissing it as “meaningless semantics”. nor one can escape the responsibility of precision by simply saying ” you’re a lawyer, you know what i mean”.
djb,
that is one tough job. we do not have the transcript of the testimonies, we do not have the forensic evidence, nor the physical evidence (panty, bra, denim), nor we have observed the demeanor of Nicole and Smith on how their body contorted when they were telling lies and how spontaneous their reply during the direct as well as cross examination when they were telling the truth. or how their eyeballs move from up to down and rotate from their axis when confronted with probing questions from both counsel.
ha ha ha, your guess could be as valid as mine.
djb,
the out of court “acquittal” pronuncement of Nicole was for public consumption. it has no probative value. the CA cannot take judicial notice of it.
but the public has already pronounced guilty verdict in line with the guilty verdict of Judge Pozon.
the nicole statement is to counter the public pronouncement of guilt verdict but not the Pozon guilty verdict.
nicole affidavit is only setting the right stage for the public to accept the “acquittal” verdit of the CA. — that is my take on the matter.
JCC,
What of the culpable violation of RA 8505 in the matter of right to privacy?
JCC,
I understand Nicole’s affidavit has been filed with the CA and she will be personally affirming it, somehow.
I cannot see how the CA cannot take some kind of notice of it.
There are several interesting supreme court decisions MODIFYING an RTC decision in the case of rape and downgrading the crime the accused is found guilty for, like acts of lasciviousness.
Or better yet, acts of stupidity.
DJB,
That is nonensense. Nicole cannot present the affidavit with the CA because she has left already.
The CA is not a trier of facts. If ever the case would be remanded to the RTC just to receive the affidavit of Nicole.
But if the affidavit is being presented as a proof of pardon, may be the CA can receive it but Nicole has to attest the veracity of the affidavit by appearing before the CA.
DJB,
Judicial notice is a very precise concept. Matters that are generally accepted as proof because it can be verified for its veracity from sources whose integrity cannot be questioned.
Or matter of geography or scientific proof.
That Philippines is part of Asia and that on a particular day and time the temperature of Manila was 100 degrees F. Or that the common blood type is O ( or was it B?), that Quiapo is in Manila or that R.A. 8505 was passed by Congress and it was about the law on privacy.
The affidavit is very specific to Nicole’s allege “recantation” and does not fall in one of those areas that can be taken cognizance of by the court by virtue of the principle of “judicial notice”.
JCC,
What is the procedure or requirement to gain a “re-trial” or to declare a mis-trial?
I find this exercise to be an intellectual discourse…and not “pataasan ng ihi” as I’m sure there’s already some form of prostate enlargement and urinary bladder problems in some that will disqualify them.
Anyway, DJB welcomed a differing opinion on HIS assertions and I humbly answered his call. Although confused, as I was back in August 2007, my legal research department – Google, to be exact – was able to come up with citations and jurisprudence to back up MY assertions (my copy-pastings from another blog here). Somehow I was able to comprehend then what really happens after a trial of a criminal case. My understanding on the Presumption of Innocence hasn’t wavered since I got interested on it and most especially now even as DJB again posted his theory on the matter.
In a layman’s (please be reminded that I’m not a lawyer) point of view, this is how I applied my contention:
Trial of a capital offense ends.
Verdict: conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentence stated.
Outcome of trial appealed (of course automatic review by SCORP is inevitable if conviction upheld by CA).
My understanding is:
Presumption of innocence – ended
Conviction – enforced
Sentence – stayed (during pendency of appeal)
Convicted-accused, now appellant – confined without bail*
Outcome of trial – being reviewed**
—–
*besides being a capital offense, bail should be denied because after a person has been tried and convicted the presumption of innocence which may be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to show error in the conviction – as stated in the RRC of the Phils.
**whether constitutional right of presumption of innocence was given the accused during the trial or not; whether the prosecution was able to unburden themselves of proof beyond reasonable doubt that will find guilt to the accused or not; and whether the trial judge erred or not
(Both footnotes explained in my penultimate post in this thread.)
—–
In sum…
Once again, in legal parlance, I rest my case.
Baycas,
The “English Composition and Comprehension” problem here lies in the tendency to understand certain words in their colloquial meaning, when in fact they have technical meanings to Courts and lawyers.
At the same time there are moral, ethical factors that the Courts and Lawyers do not necessarily understand themselves or know how to deal with.
For example, it is unrebutted that the accused appellant was denied due process and equal protection under the Rape Protection Act RA 8505.
Too, there are numerous examples I am discovering of what the CA and SCoRP do with RTC “judgments of conviction”–they can do almost anything to them, for example they can find an accused appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a different, usually a lesser crime.
I think the key point, at least for me, is that the RTC Judge’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is really just HIS own opinion.
I have been insisting that for the Presumption of Innocence to be lost completely, or permanently, if you like, all 20 justices that MUST rule on an appeal, and their opinion on “guilt” or “not guilty” are every bit as important as the RTC judges. The fact that he can be found to have committed ERRORS means that his judgment is not metaphysically binding, that “beyond a reasonable doubt” really ought to have the phrase “in the mind of the judge” attached.
My earlier interpretations of Fernando’s ponencia in Dramayo I still adhere to is that this finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt must also be found with moral certainty by the CA and the SCoRP.
Note that the fact that you can have non- anonymous decisions at the appellate stages means that “reasonable doubt” is a very tricky quantity. I have tried to solve that ambiguity by saying what is required is a UNANIMOUS JUDGMENT OF GUILT by three successive Courts, the RTC, the CA and the SCoRP.
I think this is why even at the SCoRP level the term used is always “accused-appellant” and never “convicted-appellant” (but let’s not quibble about that!)
Finally, Fernando’s statement that every circumstance favoring an accused’s innocence must be taken cognizance of by the Courts is equivalent to the Adams Principle of our system being more willing to see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted unjustly.
It really would help if this discussion were ongoing without our knowing any of the personal circumstances of the accused and the offended party in this case.
That is why I think the wanton and obvious violations of RA8505 has poisoned the case, as well as our own deliberations!
on appeal the accused cannot create a “reasonable doubt” the doubt was already right there at the trial court only that it was not fully appreciated by the trial court or it has totally disregarded that piece of evidence that creates that doubt either by failure to take notice of its significance by consideration of “judicial ignorance” “judicial bias”, or “monetary bias”. the appellant simply highlights in his appeal brief that piece of evidence that was disregarded by the trial court that can create reasonable doubt on his guilt and therefore the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden.
one’s postrate condition has no effect on “pissing” contest which is just a euphemism for “showing off”. i saw a lot of people with prostrate problems haranguing in the corridors of power as if they have the monopoly of talents and common sense in this world.
JCC,
How can the “reasonable doubt” have existed in the trial court, when the judgment of conviction said proof beyond a reasonable doubt was found.
I claim that “doubt” does not exist independently of the human mind, whether reasonable or not.
newly-found evidence is one reason for re-trial but i doubt if nicole’s affidavit will fall into that category.
denial of substantive due process where due to the “circus” atmosphere attendant to the trial, accused’s conviction was railroaded and the judge has acted injudiciously.. bu the same issue of denial of substantive due process which can be a basis for retrial can also be raised in the appeal brief without necessarily asking for a re-trial.
DJB,
Two people looking at the same situation can have different impression on what they see. This is how you look at the evidence at the trial court. Prosecution and the court look at the situation as having found evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the accused but the accused see the situation as providing reasonable doubt for his innocence.
JCC,
There is also this: it is not for the accused to create the reasonable doubt in the CA Justices’ minds. Fernando is very clear about that. Even at the appeals stages it is the DUTY of the justices to ascertain to a moral certainty the guilt of the accused, based on the records and even if they do not retry the facts in the usual adversarial court procedure of the RTC.
I have found various decisions relating to the Jalosjos case most enlightening in this regard. Look them up, I had some links but gotta go for my ride…hehe my constitutional bike ride that is…see you folks later
this is quibbling…
“convicted-accused” not “convicted-appellant.”
abe already gave an example with regard the court’s use of “convicted-accused.” i’m pretty sure if you google “convicted-accused” + philippines there will be other examples.
anyway, probably it’s more appropriate tto use this:
“convicted-accused/appellant”
—–
i made sure i italicized the “prostate” statement because some here sometimes take comments in their literal sense.
JCC,
But “reasonable doubt” must be found or not found by the Judge making the decision, not the prosecution or the accused.
It is the judge’s decision that will be affirmed or set aside, and in many of the examples i have seen that is how they actually phrase it: that the CA judges find reasonable doubt in their minds and not in the RTC judge’s mind. Yes they are finding error in the RTC’s decision, but they themselves must have “reasonable doubt” in their minds to acquit.
Also, I believe that strictly speaking after the RTC stage only the RTC judge has a right to say he has found proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for that is the nature of the trial inquisition. It is not a jury but a judge that renders decisions in our court system, from RTC to SCoRP. His decision will only be allowed to stand if the CA judges themselves find no reasonable doubt in their mind’s of the accused’s guilt.
Baycas, the overwhelming preponderance of SCoRP decisions uses the “appellant accused” even in the case of Romeo Jalosjos and his pimp.
DJB,
Stop your self righteous posturing about presumption of innocence and all that. You approved of torture for suspected terrorists. You even resorted to that silly ticking time bomb theory to justify the unlawful torture and detention of suspected terrorists. Talk about ethics. Eeeew!
Daniel Smith was tried and CONVICTED. His conviction is on appeal. You cannot claim for him what you would not grant others.
“I” approved of torture of terrorist suspects?
You must be trying to change the subject.
First of all this is non sequitur. Second, I plead “not guilty”. Third, without the presumption of innocence every single one of those “terrorists” and “enemy combatants” would’ve been dead and buried long ago.
What you cannot seem to accept MB is something called “equal protection of the Laws”.
You must be a charter member of the Lynch Mobs organized by Joma, which feeds on hatred and self-loathing, and can never represent the Filipino People’s best interests, or the best that the Filipinos can do.
If we cannot stand firmly for Blind Justice, we shall always be blinded by our own prejudice.
Sooner or later the shoe will be on the other foot, and it is Democracy itself that would be destroyed.
That after all, is what the Left wants and that you are abetting.
So be my guest: add more and more reasons for the CA to acquit.
DJB,
This will certainly go in your favor (and JCC’s too). I am sick and not busy at the moment…my legal department, aka Google, was able to come up with the solution to my puzzle (based on your perspective):
It was spelled out in Mangubat vs Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-60613-20 August 29, 1986:
This ruling was reverberated here…
A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC, January 31, 2008 penned by J. Nachura:
And, recently, here (as you’ve mentioned the Jalosjos case)…
ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV vs HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT- BRANCH 148, MAKATI CITY; GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, VICE ADM. ROGELIO I. CALUNSAG, MGEN. BENJAMIN DOLORFINO, AND LT. COL. LUCIARDO OBEÑA, G.R. No. 179817 (promulgated June 27, 2008), decision made by Associate Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES:
In effect, you are right and I can now fill in the blank:
Presumption of innocence – continued
Conviction – NOT YET FINAL AND EXECUTORY
Sentence – stayed (during pendency of appeal)
Appellant – confined
Outcome of trial – being reviewed
…and, btw, JAXIUS is correct likewise (based on the above jurisprudence).
BAYCAS,
Now, I can consider your research with a “pissing” admiration. :)
:)
baycas, so in view of your research, how does “presumption of innocence” benefits the convict in any way on appeal? (btw, good job, once again).
Baycas,
Jaw drops,
with many thanks
and much admiration
for your perspicacity,
and this blessed edification.
All who’ve weighed in on this issue on either side, are to be congratulated for their patience and indulgence of a long and gruelling debate, from which I have learned more about Law and Justice than any book or lecture ever has.
WE LEARN THE MOST
FROM THOSE
WHO DISAGREE WITH US.
THANK YOU, JUSTICE BAYCAS!
DJB,
So we learn from Justice Baycas who initially dissented then make a sudden turn around to agree finally with Justices DJB and JCC. :)
In my case i did not learn anything because I believe I know my “presumptions at heart”. But I agree with you that Justice Baycas should be commended for his perspicacity and willingness to take our distinguished brethens, Justices Bencard and Abe a good run for their money. :)
JCC,
We ought not *gloat* but there it is. I’m just happy I wasn’t going crazy or off the rails with this. You kept me on them. Thanks.
baycas,
no wonder JCC and DJB got excited but wait a minute.
you cited an example where the presumption of innocence was related to the issue: moral torpitude not on ( with respect to the fact, previously convicted by this court)She was not convicted of that crime yet( moral torpitude).
if you have read the case further:
the case is not a good example on presumption of innocence. find another one please :) this case is actually a good example on strategy to acquit.
and now jalosjos, the child molester?
baycas,
can you provide me the link on jalosjos and where you get your facts. it doesn’t sound right. don’t cut and paste and remove the important facts.
on Preagido, you did not include to quote the KEYWORD: PENDING.
hay naku….
DJB,
not gloating, just pretending that we are justices who can disagree with each other and still be friends. :)
you are most welcome, esteemed colleagues…on either side of the fence…
—–
bencard,
well, for one, the accused/appellant need not be called a “convicted-accused” (a convicted-rapist, for this matter of discussion) for it’d be a misnomer…
unless one will quibble on a “not-yet-finally-convicted-accused/appellant” tag…
—–
o
d
jb,
how i love
the free world wide web
indeed very informative
very enlightening: our very own library
Leytenian,
The quotes I’ve made above speak for themselves. These are the links…
J. Nachura’s: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/jan2008/06-9-545-RTC.htm
J. Carpio Morales’: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/179817.htm
To reiterate J. Carpio Morales’ words:
(emphasis mine)
The latter cited People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000
Again, bravo Baycas, bravo. My respectful admiration continues…
baycas
you are citing a case of moral torpitude . It’s not the same as RAPE : Republic V. Smith. The crime of RAPE is a major offense with direct effect to the general public. Moral turpitude is more like a misdemeanor.
Did you notice on number 2. that her conviction was not yet final. The required element is for her to clear her name.
Baycas,
Trilianes case was political in nature. RAPE is a major offense against the people. You cannot compare the two. The Jalosjos case was cited not because of presumption of innocence but it was about ” continuation in office” . Let me point out the language that you might have missed and misunderstood.
On paragraph A, notice the language that says ” IN THE INSTANT CASE, ACCUSED/PETITIONER” and on paragraph B, notice the language that says “HEREIN ACCUSED/PETITIONER ” both are referred to Trilianes not Jalosjos.
Trilianes has not been convicted yet , so he still enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Find another example of RAPE and try harder :) LOL
oh, a good example of presumption of innocence is JCC’s Case. His case is very minor and has no direct negative effect to the public. RAPE is totally a different case. It’s a major crime against the general public : Republic v. Smith.
Trillanes was political? It was usurpation of power. He should be tried before military tribunal.
Leytenian,
You are off the rails today. The Presumption of Innocence and the deep principles that underlie it apply to ALL criminal cases.
but a definitive rape such as you are demanding, will soon be decided that will show how much more worthy of being listened to about Law and Google, Baycas is than you. It’s called People v. Smith.
But I bet you will have to come back to this post and re-read Baycas to understand even that explicitly instructive and forthcoming decision.
Leytenian,
Jalosjos is probably the most relevant case on the presumption of innocence. Justice Morales spelled it out in the Trillanes case.