Undue media coverage

Media’s extensive coverage of the gruesome June 29, 1991 Vizconde rape-slay case was expected and seemed to be understandable because of the mindless and cruel way the crime was committed. From its discovery on June 30, 1991 when Estrellita and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were found dead in their home, every significant development and the minutest details surrounding the crime seemed to be really newsworthy. Thus all of them had been highlighted and extensively reported in the press. Indeed many believed then, that if media had not covered the crime in such a big way, it would not have been “solved” as fast and the corresponding charges filed in Court.

But with the recent Supreme Court (SC) decision acquitting the seven prime suspects charged in court led by Hubert Webb, there is a growing view about the contrary adverse effect of that extensive media coverage on the criminal justice system.

The SC ruling reversed the earlier decisions of the trial and appellate courts and thus pushed the case back to square one. It has relegated the case once more to one of the many unsolved crimes in this country. Such SC ruling has thus aroused belief in the minds of many that if media had not covered the event as broadly and fully, the “People of the Philippines” would have been spared of all this waste of time, money and effort for the past 15 years investigating, prosecuting and trying the wrong persons; that if there was less media interference, it would have been easier to solve the crime beyond reasonable doubt, catch the real culprits and bring them to justice.

It must be remembered that our criminal justice system is built on five pillars: the police that investigates the crime and identifies the suspects; the prosecution that determines whether the suspects should be charged and tried in court; the court that tries the case and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or his/her innocence; the penal institution that implements the punishment imposed; and the community which ensures that the social purposes of the crime and punishment system are reasonably attained.

The workings of the government agencies manning these pillars will definitely have different results depending on whether they are always under the glare of the media people or they are left alone to do their task silently and without much fanfare. The hovering “press hounds” asking “smart and wise” questions with their mikes and TV cameras on, will somehow put pressure on them and influence their work.

The sensational Vizconde massacre case clearly proves this claim. The final outcome of the case exonerating the accused evidently shows media’s influence especially in so far as the police, the prosecution, and the lower courts are concerned.

While the police was still in the initial stages of the investigation, resourceful media people, as expected, already elicited from the police names of suspects whose social standings served like magnets to undue publicity. Hence their names were already floated around and aired in media thereby creating a snowballing public perception that they were the culprits. These put pressure on the police and later on the National Bureau of Investigation to come up with evidence that would support this public perception.

The same lot apparently befell the prosecution. After examining the evidence gathered by the NBI and the police which were forwarded to them, they filed the case in court and held the suspects for trial, more secure in the thought that public opinion that had built up because of media coverage would support their decision rather than in the belief that quality of the evidence at hand was enough to support conviction.

The trial by publicity in the court was likewise very evident. While there was no live media coverage, every action or order of the Judge and every sensational development in the case concerning the witnesses and the testimonies had been openly reported and commented on. It was not therefore far-fetched to conclude that the trial judge’s decision was influenced by public opinion and other factors. The rule on sub-judice was blatantly disregarded. This sad reality had even prompted Justice Arturo D. Brion to render a supplemental opinion “independently of the merits of the case” where he pointed out “the growing disregard and non-observance of the sub judice rule to the detriment of the rights of the accused, the integrity of the courts, and ultimately the administration of justice”. 

According to Justice Brion, “from the time the charges were filed, the case has captured the public’s interest that an unusual amount of air time and print space have been devoted to it. Of late, with the public’s renewed interest after the case was submitted for decision, key personalities have again been unabashedly publicizing their opinions and commenting even on the merits of the case before various forms of media”.

Thus Justice Brion in his supplemental opinion took occasion to remind that “in essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the pending judicial proceedings. The restriction applies not only to participants in the pending case, i.e. to members of the bar and the bench, and to litigants and witnesses but also to the public in general, which necessarily includes the media”.

Actually, this undue media coverage is unfair to both the main protagonists in this case especially: Freddie Web who bore the brunt and the pain of being perceived as the father of a convicted rapist-killer for 15 years; and Lauro Vizconde who is now undergoing the untold ordeals of a husband and father after his media-influenced belief that the culprits have been brought to justice was shattered by the SC ruling.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]