My heart goes out to the families of the Pamplona Massacre victims. Their quest for justice seems to have been stymied by the recantation of the prime suspects in the most brazen and gruesome political killings in the country this decade. In particular, I cannot begin to imagine the mental and emotional anguish Mayor Janice Degamo, wife of assassinated Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo, is going through right now. I pray that the mayor and other surviving family members will not waver nor falter in this legal fight. Perhaps they may want to take a page from the Malaya Lolas or the “comfort women” in the last World War, as well as the families of the Maguindanao Massacre victims who never gave up despite the long, arduous court battle.
In regard to the retraction, I have stated in my previous column that the Supreme Court views this as a mockery of the solemnity of court trials and sworn testimonies in the investigation and pursuit of the truth (People vs. Sing, 1983). In a 1972 ruling on the same case, the High Court stressed the unreliability of a recanted testimony, especially if it involves a confession of perjury. The general rule is that recantations are hardly given much weight in the determination of a case and granting of a new trial (Tan Ang Bun vs. Court of Appeals, 1990). The court must test the value of a recantation in a public trial through the cross-examination of the recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantations and the motivations for it (People vs. Bensurto, 2016).
Our courts of law should never allow unscrupulous individuals to make a circus out of our criminal justice system. After all, bribery or intimidation can induce a retraction, even perjury, from a witness.
Forced testimonies
The accused individuals, who face multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder charges, claim that the police obtained their forced confessions through torture. In their initial sworn testimonies, they admitted participation in the March 4 carnage and implicated suspended Negros Oriental 3rd District Representative Arnolfo Teves Jr. as the mastermind. Since torture is an international crime, the recanting witnesses should have immediately filed a criminal case against the erring police officers. Even if they are under detention, the court will subject them to a medical and psychological examination to establish the forensics on torture or physical evidence.
The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected to having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include suffering arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
The Philippines became a party to the Convention in 1986. The UNCAT mandates each state party to ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law. It applies to all acts committed in a state party’s territory under its jurisdiction or control. Thus, they are duty-bound to investigate, prosecute and punish those who participate or are complicit in the crime. The country’s Anti-Torture Act of 2009 adopts the UNCAT definition and punishes the perpetrators of torture and similar acts with a maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Obstruction of justice
Citing the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) intelligence report, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Crispin “Boying” Remulla disclosed that a former justice undersecretary bribed each suspect with P8 million to recant. With the Bureau under his jurisdiction, Boying can access classified information, particularly on individuals detained within the NBI premises. He is a veteran lawmaker and lawyer himself, so I do not think he will issue any disclosure without supporting evidence.
As expected, the former DOJ official and the counsels of the suspects vehemently denied the bribery allegation. Otherwise, it is considered an act that obstructs, frustrates, impedes or delays the successful prosecution of criminal offenders.
Under Section 1(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1829, individuals who prevent witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats shall be punished with the maximum penalty of prison correccional and a fine of up to P6,000. The Revised Penal Code states that the penalty of prision correccional, suspension and destierro in its maximum period is six years. It is high time for Congress to amend the decree and make the crime of obstruction of justice, particularly in murder cases, a grave offense. Those guilty of willfully and knowingly bribing witnesses to recant and perjure before the court should face a longer sentence and a heftier fine.
Despite the retraction of the accused, I believe the DOJ can rely on physical evidence to buttress their case against Congressman Teves and his accomplices. The images captured by CCTV cameras would establish the presence of the suspects at the crime scene. The prosecution team can also bank on the testimonies of wounded victims who survived and witnessed the carnage first-hand, as well as the authorities who apprehended the fleeing suspects right after the commission of the crime. Further, the recanting witnesses cannot deny that they signed an affidavit of extrajudicial confession, which can be used against them in the court trial.
I hope that the perpetrators of the crime will be prosecuted and punished according to law. May justice prevail in the Pamplona Massacre case.