The victims’ relatives in the Maguindanao massacre cannot be blamed for being so furious about Ampatuan Jr’s plea of not guilty to the 41 counts of murder for the brutal, premeditated and systematic slaying of innocent people including a pregnant woman and 30 journalists. Since the killings happened, evidence have been unearthed, gathered and reported in media pointing to Ampatuan, Jr. as the one who led 100 of his men in stopping the convoy of a rival clan on the way to file the certificate of candidacy for governorship of Buluan Vice Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu challenging his own gubernatorial bid.
Ampatuan Jr’s remorseless and impudent demeanor, as vividly caught on cameras, despite his seemingly evident complicity in that gruesome crime, is really enough to raise the blood pressure of anyone, especially of the massacre victims’ relatives one of whom reportedly wondered if he still has a conscience and even exclaimed that “He is an animal. He should go to hell”. These feelings are quite understandable and should be respected.
But the relatives should also understand and respect the rule of law. This is an integral part of our justice system. Admittedly it is quite ironic that the rule of law is now being fully and scrupulously accorded to someone who has apparently defied and flaunted it with such blood curdling brazenness. Observing the rule of law however is the only way to uphold and serve the best interest of justice especially for the victims and their relatives. Wrongdoings no matter how reprehensible cannot be redressed and corrected by committing other equally reprehensible wrongs like disregarding the rule of law also.
Ampatuan Jr.’s plea of not guilty even if he looks guilty to many of us is merely an invocation of his right under Article III Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty… without due process of law”. Such plea is necessary to start the wheels justice rolling. It is the first step in the due process that every accused is entitled to.
Actually Ampatuan, Jr. could have already entered a guilty plea and sentenced accordingly after the Court has assured itself that such plea was made voluntarily. In this manner, the due process requirement is also satisfied. But by entering a “not guilty” plea, he chose to impose upon the prosecution the burden of proving his guilt because “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Section 14, (2), Article III, Constitution).
At this stage, Ampatuan, Jr’s “not guilty” plea does not necessarily mean that he did not really commit the crimes charged and that his lawyers believe they can prove his innocence. It may also mean that he or his lawyers would rather burden the Prosecution with the task of proving his guilt considering the gravity of the offenses charged which may even result in death sentences (R.A. 7659) for Ampatuan Jr.; that they would rather have the raw evidence so far gathered by the prosecution validated by the trial court as to their weight or probative value and admissibility in accordance with the Rules of Court. After all, to secure a conviction, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. And that evidence consist of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires the presentation of admissible and credible evidence sufficient enough to establish a moral certainty that the accused committed the crimes charged. In other words the evidence must convince and direct the understanding and satisfy the reason of the Judge bound to act conscientiously upon it (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 2246). While absolute certainty is not required, mere possibility of guilt no matter how strong is insufficient to warrant a conviction. Hence when the evidence presented by the prosecution is capable of being interpreted consistent with the guilt of the accused and also with his innocence, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be questionable (People vs. Satorre 408 SCRA 642).
With such tough rules on evidence required for conviction, it is no wonder that persons accused of crimes usually opt to plead not guilty either hoping that the prosecution fumble or be frustrated by their abuse or misuse of the rule of law. In these cases and at this stage of the proceedings Ampatuan, Jr’s reason for entering a “not guilty” plea may already be deduced from his moves.
A person who is not really guilty of the crime/s charged would usually and immediately invoke his right to have a speedy, impartial and fair trial so that he could prove his innocence as early as possible. An innocent man would not bother anymore to engage in other incidental proceedings indicative of dilatory tactics. He would rather proceed to trial at the earliest possible time. Of course he may avail himself of the right to be released on bail if the evidence of his guilt is not strong enough because this is one of his rights. Oftentimes however, an accused person resort to such remedy only and precisely to delay and prolong his case because once out on bail, he can take his own sweet time and adopt other dilatory tactics like repeated postponements and other protracted legal moves so that the trial of his case/s will last for a lifetime already.
Obviously, the right to due process of law is subject to abuse or misuse such that instead of serving the ends of justice, it becomes a tool for the perpetration of injustices or denial of justice. This is apparently the fear and the doubt being entertained by the Maguindanao massacre victims’ relatives in connection with the trial of the cases. Their quest for justice should not therefore end in failure if we want them to keep that respect for the rule of law. And this depends a lot on the prosecution, the court, the media and even the public who must be vigilant enough to guard against such abuse or misuse.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net