There is no stopping death penalty, Barbers says

Re-electionist Sen. Robert Barbers welcomed yesterday the Supreme Court (SC) decision ordering a retrial of the kidnap-for-ransom case involving death row convicts Roderick Licayan and Roberto Lara, but said the order should not be seen as a setback for the government’s anti-crime campaign.

He said in a statement that the public should realize the case against Licayan and Lara involved "extraordinary circumstances" and "should not be interpreted as a stumbling block in the government’s effort to implement the death penalty" as a deterrent against crime.

Barbers echoed the stand taken by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption on the SC order.

"Only hardened and recidivist criminals have no place in our society. Guilty offenders of heinous crimes must be given the penalty of death in order to weed them out in our society," he said.

Barbers, a former Manila police colonel, is a staunch advocate of capital punishment and is seeking re-election under the banner of the ruling Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats party.

He said while pro-death penalty advocates like himself welcome the retrial of case involving Lara and Licayan, the SC decision may give an impression that the government is getting soft in its anti-crime campaign.

This will embolden kidnap-for-ransom syndicates to continue with their criminal activities, added Barbers, who earlier urged the lifting of the moratorium on the death penalty.

However, Barbers pointed out that he was among the first to call for the deferment of Lara’s and Licayan’s execution due to new evidence presented by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) that may prove their innocence.

"The very objective in the implementation of the death penalty will be defeated if we let an innocent person suffer the fate of death for a crime he never committed," he said.

Barbers, who chairs the Senate committee on public order, noted that the SC order did not mean that Licayan and Lara have been declared innocent.

"This will only give the PAO the chance to include the new evidences they acquired that may prove the innocence of either of the two death convicts. This is to attest that we can rely on our justice system," he said.

Last Feb. 19, Lara and Licayan got a new lease on life after the SC, voting 8-6 pro hac vice (for this occasion only), suspended the scheduled Feb. 28 execution of the two convicted kidnappers and remanded their 1998 kidnap-for-ransom case to the Marikina City regional trial court for the hearing of new evidence.

In rendering the ruling, the SC gave weight to the affidavits of Lara’s and Licayan’s co-accused, Pedro Mabansag and Rogelio de los Reyes, that the two had no part in the 1998 kidnapping of businessman Joseph Tomas Co and his assistant, Linda Manaysay.

In granting a new trial, the SC suspended a provision of the Rules of Court, which only allows a reopening of a case before the judgment has become final.

"Indeed, the basic grant of a new trial is that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and the grant of a new trial will be in the interest of justice," it said.

The SC said a new trial is justified when new and material evidence has been discovered, which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have found and produced during the original trial, and if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

"Technically, the affidavits of Delos Reyes and Mabansag are not newly discovered in that the affiants are the movants’ co-accused who were already identified as such during the trial," read the decision.

"Nonetheless, we note the evidence contained in the affidavits could not have emerged during the pendency of the case, owing to the flight of the affiants," it said.

The SC said it was immediately informed of the discovery of the new evidence, and that the Office of the Solicitor General had not objected to the reopening of the case against Lara and Licayan.

"That the People’s Tribune himself seeks the reopening of the case must be given due regard and cannot be dismissed lightly," read the decision.

"The State is no less interested than the individual accused of a crime in his acquittal if he is innocent," it said.