Presumed innocent

The Constitution says that “the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved” (Art. III of Section 14(2). This is a time honored principle recognized in every civilized, fair and just society. It is a recognition of the inherent goodness in every man.

But our laws also realize that despite such inherent goodness in every man, society is still beset with so many evils and wrongdoings that can only be attributed to man himself, hence the presumption of innocence is not conclusive, but may be disproved. This is the reason for the subsequent phrase “until the contrary is proved.”

Since innocence is presumed, the initial burden is upon the prosecution or accuser to show that a person is not innocent, that he is beyond reasonable doubt. Failing this, a person remains innocent and the presumption stays. A concrete example of this constitutional doctrine happened in one recent case, involving an employer and employee.

Cardo, the employee is a member of the labor union organized within the employer corporation. At the height of a strike declared by the union, Cardo was implicated in a mauling and stoning incident. Consequently, he was charged with the offense of slight physical injuries and was suspended during the pendency of the case. Thereafter, the company and the union entered into a “return to work”, agreement providing, among others, that employees charged and suspended may be reinstated to their respective jobs if they are found innocent.

In the meantime, the charge against Cardo was dismissed for failure of the witnesses for the prosecution to appear, Cardo thus asked the company to reinstate him because of the dismissal of the charge. The company, on the other hand, refused to reinstate Cardo contending that the dismissal of the charge was only because of failure to prosecute and not because Cardo was found innocent by the Court. Is the company correct?

No. Since the criminal case was dismissed, the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of Cardo should be applied. Cardo need not prove that he is innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to show that he is guilty. Since the prosecution failed to present any witnesses, Cardo is still presumed innocent. The argument that there must be express finding of innocence by the trial court as required by the return to work agreement to entitle Cardo to reinstatement and back wages is incompatible with the Constitutional presumption of innocence and the constitutional provision on protection of labor. Cardo should be reinstated with back wages.

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]