Presumption of innocence
Our Law dean has intimated to me that it is time for me to teach Constitutional Law and even Criminal Law, instead of focusing only on Labor Law and Social Legislation. Well, Criminal Law has always been my favorite subject. My two mentors, the late Executive Judge Jesus P Narvios was famous for having memorized the Revised Penal Code and my boss, the late Judge Eliseo T Ynclino was a prolific criminal and civil law professor in the two top Cebu law schools. Judge Narvios was our professor in the Gullas Law School and we, the students, together with Frank Malilong, Celso Espinosa, and Annie Pasaylo were all amazed with his mastery of the penal principles and leading cases.
We were taught Political and Constitutional Law by our Law dean himself, Cecilio T Gillamac, who owns the motorcycle sales and distribution chains all over the country bearing his name. Dean Gillamac was a UP graduate and a classmate of President Marcos. These illustrious professors, together with later Deans Amadeo " Matoy" Seno and Teodoro A Almase (Bar Topnotcher and Geodetic Board Topnotcher too ). Judge Romulo P Senining and Professor Lorenzo Paradiang taught us to become lawyers with great passion and grit. And we were immensely inspired in our law school, which was founded by the first Cebuano Bar topnotcher, Don Paulino Gullas, uncle of Eddiegul and Sir Dodong Gullas.
From all our eminent mentors, we learned two basic principles in both Constitutional and Criminal Law: the presumption of innocence and the proof beyond reasonable doubt. There are senators and other big-time politicians today, who are being detained and are under trial without bail for plunder or graft. There is likewise a ''notorious'' general for alleged summary killings of innocent students and unarmed civilians, as well as a Muslim political family in Mindanao for alleged massacre of media men and women and political opponents. Many people, especially the victims' families have already ''convicted'' them in their minds. But the principle says that the State prosecutors have the onus of still proving their guilt.
Presumption of innocence means that the accused, no matter how ''obvious'' is their guilt in the minds of many, have no obligation to prove their innocence. The law looks at them as ''tabula raza'', or a clean piece of paper. It is the duty of the prosecution to write on that piece of paper those real, oral and documentary evidence that should all constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. If in the mind of the judge, there is no moral certainty that the accused did it as principal, accomplice or accessory to the crime for which they were charged, then acquittal would follow. This is the rule established by law because, while the State has all the powers and the resources, the accused is often alone to defend himself.
In Labor Law, and in administrative cases, the Arbiter would only require '' substantial evidence'' or that degree of proof that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to support a logical conclusion. In civil cases, what is needed by the judge is only preponderance of evidence or a little tilting of the scale of justice in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant. But in criminal law, it is the highest degree of proof that is required: proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is because, here, the life and the liberty of the accused are at stake, whereas in labor, administrative and civil disputes, what is involved is only property.
- Latest
