Precipitate action

After that shocker of an unconstitutional impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice courtesy of some Congressmen comes another jolting left hook this time inflicted by a judge of of the Regional Trial Court of Q.C. in the Kuratong multiple murder case.

The Kuratong case had undergone a thorough preliminary investigation by the DOJ State Prosecutors during which Lacson and his co-accused were afforded the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainants and to file their counter affidavits. Witnesses had submitted sworn statements under oath consistent with the physical evidence supported by pictures showing that there was no firefight but a summary execution. These evidence by themselves and in the absence of contravening proof were enough to engender a well founded belief that the crime of multple murder has been committed and that Lacson and his cohorts are probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.To be sure, the State Prosecutor had already issued a resolution finding "probable cause" on the basis of these uncontroverted evidence. In fact an accusation in writing, technically called the "information" charging them with said offense, subscribed by the prosecutor has already been filed in court.

Under the Rules of Court( Rule 110 Sec.6), the judge is called upon to personally evaluate this resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence within ten(10) days from the filing of the information or, in this case, from the time the records were remanded by the Supreme Court. Then he shall issue a warrant of arrest. It is only if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause should the judge immediately dismiss the case. With the sworn statements of witnesses and the gory photographs of the handcuffed victims in this case, uncontroverted as they are, these evidence on record clearly proves rather than fails to establish probable cause. If some judges still entertain doubts, the rule requires them to ask the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days to prove probable cause, not to dismiss the case. They should remember that the evidence required to establish guilt is not yet necessary at this stage.

The evidence on record in this Kuratong case,standing alone, already calls for a rebuttal or controversion by the accused. Any person, more so a judge, has no way of conclusively declaring that these evidence on record is already incredible without proof to the contrary. This case cannot be finally disposed of, nor can truth and justice be served without hearing the side of the accused. A dismissal at this stage of the proceedings is precipitate for it cannot be said that the accused are not guilty beyond the shadow of any doubt. Without the arraignment and trial of the accused, the Damoclean sword of uncertainty as to their innocence is left hanging over their heads.It is fairer for them and for the victims if trial on the merits be conducted without any further delay so they can expeditiously and definitely clear themselves of the charges.

The order of the RTC judge in this case is definitely questionable and may amount to a grave abuse of discretion. But rather than elevate this matter once more before the higher courts, the prosecution should explore the legal possibility of resorting to other courses of action so as not to to prolong the case. Refiling the charges before another Regional Trial Court of competent jurisdiction may be a better and more expeditious alternative because,after all, double jeopardy has not yet attached in this case.At most, the dismissal is merely provisional and is not a bar to a refiling of the case.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]