No other case has attracted so much attention and has elicited so many commentaries than the Hubert Webb case. Even noted journalists without an iota of legal background have become legal experts overnight giving opinions on why the accused are guilty or not guilty. In fact most of those who have aired their opinions in the press are non-lawyers who think they know better than the judge in evaluating the evidence presented at the trial. Some kibitzers even cite evidence which may not have been submitted in court at all.
Some friends called me up to ask why I have not written anything about such a sensational case that had caught the attention of the entire nation, or why I have not participated in the raging debate on the possible verdict just before the decision came out, when even some senators, noted lawyers and the justice department have already expressed their views on the matter.
My stance is easily understandable, I still believe in the rule that when a case is still before the court under judicial consideration, any comment or opinion that goes into the merits of that case is an obstruction of justice. Until a final decision has been rendered the case is sub judice. In fact every lawyer, whether counsel for the parties to the case or not should shy away from publicity. The canons of professional ethics expressly declare that "newspaper publications by a lawyer as to the pending litigation may interfere with a fair trial in the courts and otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice." Statements to the press should not go beyond quotation from the records and papers on file in the court. Columnists and opinion makers should not assail their beliefs into the guilt or innocence of the accused even at this stage when a decision has already been rendered by the trial court. While Judge Tolentino has promulgated her verdict of the case, the decision is not yet final. It becomes final only after the laps of 15 days and no appeal is made by the losing parties. Or if an appeal is made, it becomes final only after the appeal is resolved with finality. Before that, the case is still sub judice.
What I can mention in this column at this stage are merely some of the laws and principles that come into play in this particular case. Of course the most fundamental is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Based on this principal the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence rather than on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. No matter how weak may be the evidence of the accused, if the prosecution's evidence is also weak or is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, then the accused should be declared not guilty. Another rule worth mentioning is the value of circumstantial evidence. There need not be an eyewitness to a crime or someone who has directly witnessed its commission. No criminal perpetrates his evil designs under circumstance where they are seen as to be easily identified. So in the absence of eyewitnesses or direct evidence or the eyewitnesses are not credible, the crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence provided: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) there are proven facts from which the inferences and derived, (3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
These are some of the rules and principles which guided, or should have guided the judge in making her decision. And these are also some of the basic rules which will guide the appellate court for review of said decision.
Of course in the review of the decision, the appellate court generally gives weight to the findings of facts of the trial court because the latter had the vantage point of observing firsthand and upclose, the witnesses as they testify.
Those who have been convicted by the lower court and who are now languishing in jail can console themselves in the thought that if it turns out eventually that truth is on their side, they are truly blessed with this very rare opportunity of having been prosecuted and of suffering for the sake of the truth. For then, "theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
So with these basic guidelines, let's just wait and see the final outcome of the case. The truth will somehow prevail in the end.
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org.