'If it doesn't fit, you must acquit'

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” That was the famous phrase used by the late Johnnie Cochran, the lead lawyer of OJ Simpson in the murder trial of the former football player in 1995 that ultimately led to his acquittal. During his closing arguments, Cochran repeatedly used the phrase to convince the jury that his client could not have murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman because the “murderer’s gloves” presented by the prosecution did not fit when Simpson was made to put them on.

It was dubbed as “the trial of the century,” watched by millions on television where the defense lawyers were able to cast lingering doubts in the minds of the jury on the guilt of the accused, arguing that their client was framed by a vindictive and racist police detective. The defense emphasized the inconsistencies presented by the state and the shabby handling of supposed “evidences.” And while many Americans believed OJ Simpson to be guilty of the murders, they also conceded that the prosecution bungled the trial with so many mistakes. In the end, the jury had no choice but to acquit him because it was not clearly established that OJ Simpson was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt.”

“Beyond reasonable doubt” are the operative words when it comes to any criminal act because it leaves no room for uncertainty or improbability on the guilt of the accused. And this was exactly the reason, in fact the only real reason, why the Supreme Court acquitted Hubert Webb and his co-accused in the murders of Estrellita, Carmela and Jennifer Vizconde in 1991 – overturning the 2000 ruling by the Parañaque Regional Trial Court that was upheld by the Court of Appeals in 2005.

In the majority decision penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad, it was established that Jessica Alfaro was a questionable witness based on several facts from the testimony of Atty. Artemio Sacaguing, former head of the NBI Anti-Kidnapping, Hijacking, and Armed Robbery Task Force (AKHAR), who testified that Alfaro approached him saying she knew of somebody who related to her the details regarding the Vizconde massacre. But when she could not produce that supposed witness, she offered herself as a substitute and became the star witness of the prosecution. Curiously enough, Alfaro never refuted Sacaguing’s testimony. It was also confirmed that she was an NBI asset and that she herself was taking drugs. But the most compelling fact is Webb’s credible alibi. He claimed to be in the United States and had foreign airline records with US immigration records to prove and support his claim — all of which are virtually impossible to manufacture or buy.

Filipinos totally sympathize with Lauro Vizconde, a typical loving father and husband who sacrificed being away from his family to work overseas so he can provide a good life for them — only to come home and find his loved ones brutally murdered. Because it was such a high-profile and emotionally charged case, it had become media fodder, making us wonder if having a “trial by publicity” should ever be allowed.

Whenever something like this happens, our mob rule mentality sets in. And in this country, public perception can be shaped — and swayed — by too much publicity sometimes in the form of speculative opinions posited by non-lawyers. What makes it even worse is the penchant of Filipinos for rumor-mongering (considered a crime during martial law) or in other words, plain and simple “chismis” which, if repeated often enough, eventually becomes regarded as hard fact or truth. More often than not, anyone who happens to be accused of anything is almost automatically regarded “guilty” as charged through mere perception. In other words, you are guilty “without reasonable doubt” first then you have to prove yourself innocent. We have seen this happen so many times and unfortunately media is often guilty of that. And when public perception is swayed one way or the other, our “mob rule” mentality sets in and then our problem begins.

The SC decision on the Vizconde case underscores obvious shortcomings of several law enforcement agencies, particularly the capability of the Police and the NBI to preserve trial evidence and do better investigative work in obtaining clear evidence to establish guilt without any shadow of doubt. Perhaps because of public pressure in the Vizconde case, they did many short cuts with the usual “quick fix” mentality. But the most succinct observation came from Justice Secretary Leila de Lima who lamented the “defective system” that causes trials to take almost two decades before they are finally resolved, in the process prolonging the agony and suffering of both the victim and the accused.

The SC ruling was careful to stress that the acquittal did not mean the accused are innocent — simply that the prosecutors did not do a good job in proving them guilty “beyond reasonable doubt.” As correctly pointed out by Father Joaquin Bernas, “It is better to set 100 guilty men free than to send one innocent man to prison.”

We can only commiserate with Lauro Vizconde who continues to search for justice for his slain wife and children. On the other hand, 15 years in jail is a very long time for a young man like Hubert Webb and his co-accused. And for both the victims and the accused who all share the same faith — God will be the ultimate judge. But for as long as we mortals continue to believe in mere perception, short cuts and the quick fix mentality — we will never see justice prevail. And to paraphrase Simpson lawyer Johnnie Cochran: “If it doesn’t fit, then we all might as well quit.”

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]