Guilt or innocence

It was Samuel Johnson who said that all trials are the investigation of something questionable. It is for this reason that we have always questioned the popular tenet that people under trial should always be presumed innocent till proven guilty. We believe that it is more logical not to presume that any accused is guilty or innocent. That is what the trial should establish – the person’s guilt or innocence.

If an accused is presumed innocent, why was he arrested and charged? Why did he have to post bail to gain his freedom? He was arrested and charged because there was sufficient evidence to believe that he may be guilty of the charge or charges against him.

We bring this question up again because now it is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself who is being accused of pre-judging her predecessor’s case. Yet, if you examine what she actually said, there was no prejudgment. What she said was that if President Estrada were convicted of the capital crime of plunder and given the maximum sentence, which is death by lethal injection, she would probably commute the sentence to life imprisonment as she has done and will continue to do to all persons who have received the death sentence. This incidentally was in answer posed by a Japanese journalist. The question was not when – but if – Estrada receives the death sentence. There was no presumption that he would be found guilty or that he would get the death penalty.

What we should all look forward to and pray for is that the Estrada trial will be fair and just. Some people are commenting that there seems to be undue delay on the hearings. That works against the accused because he is under detention and he regain his freedom only if and when he is acquitted. We subscribe to the contention that justice delayed is justice denied. But a more accurate term for it will be "Justice delayed is a form or injustice."

We are not pre-judging the outcome of deposed President Estrada’s trial. We have faith in our judges and courts.

We recall Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto Badoy Jr.’s stand when Estrada’s defense lawyers presented a motion for the inhibition of the Division Chairman from further participating in the proceedings in two Criminal Cases, He said: "My solemn oath and assurance to my God, to my country, to the prosecution, and to the defense:

"If, at the end of the trial, at the end of the day, the evidence were to call for conviction, even if the whole world were to cry for acquittal, by the grace of God, I am prepared to stand by my lonesome, look the world straight in the eye and say – "I VOTE TO CONVICT!

"On the other hand, if, at the end of the trial, at the end of the day, the evidence were to call for acquittal, even if the whole world were to cry for conviction, by the grace of God, I am prepared to stand by my lonesome, look the world straight in the eye, and say – "I VOTE TO ACQUIT!

"Then, at peace with my God and my conscience, I shall ride into the sunset to rendezvous with my God!

"With the above solemn oath and assurance to my country, to the prosecution, and to the defense, I have found no reason, I find no reason, to inhibit myself from further presiding, and so, shall continue to preside, in the trial of the instant cases.

"So help me GOD!"