Rats in a sinking ship
Disappointed with the delay in the release of “Ingloriuous Basterds” and after discovering that we won’t be able to see it as a family because of the R-18 rating, we went to see “Law Abiding Citizen” last weekend. I wasn’t expecting much, the reviews hadn’t been good, but there was still something attractive about the combination of Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx. After seeing the film, I realized why most people didn’t like it. Not many can appreciate the jab at one of the worst features of the modern criminal justice system.
This isn’t a film review. I’m doing an outline of the plot just to contextualize what follows.
Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is an engineer whose wife and young daughter were raped and killed after two robbers broke into their house. The robbers were eventually apprehended, one of them decided to cooperate with the prosecution and turn state witness against his partner. The state witness walked while the partner he ratted on was sent to death row. The irony is that the robber that turned state witness was the one who raped and killed Shelton’s wife and daughter. Shelton, en eyewitness, was frustrated but the prosecuting attorney, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), assured him there was no other way. Ten years later, Shelton systematically kills everyone involved in the botched prosecution.
A film like that might seem nothing more than a vendetta-inspired action thriller but I’m a lawyer who has never felt comfortable with plea-bargaining and settlements to avoid criminal prosecution so my reaction was different. Fine if it’s just a question of monetary liability. Settle, by all means. But when we’re talking of crimes like murder or rape or plunder or malfeasance in public office, how can one even entertain settlement as an option?
But the sad truth is that the “areglo” mentality is very much a part of the any modern legal system, including ours. For starters, check Section 2 of Article 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states on plea bargaining. What is plea bargaining? It means the accused pleads guilty to a less serious crime that carries a lighter penalty thereby avoiding a trial where he be be convicted of the more serious crime and, ergo, serving the higher penalty. Why would the government agree to something like that? It means less work because there’s no long drawn-out trial. It means investigators no longer have to go digging for additional evidence to secure a conviction for the higher crime. Trabahong tamad, in other words. But let’s have a specific example just to drive home the point that plea bargaining is crap.
Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang is a familiar name. He was a co-accused in the plunder case against the former President Joseph Estrada. Ang was accused of pocketing P130 million from the tobacco excise tax intended for Ilocos Sur in 1998. He entered into a plea bargaining agreement, pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of indirect bribery and paid P25 million to the government. In return, he was meted a two-year probation. What did Ang avoid by pleading guilty to a lesser offense? He avoided possible life imprisonment and a forfeiture of all ill-gotten wealth including interests, income and assets derived therefrom. Imagine that.
What did the government – and the people – get in return? Ang corrorobated the testimony of star witness Chavit Singson who testified that he and Ang delivered the P130 million to Estrada’s residence at no. 1 Polk Street in North Greenhills, San Juan in late 1998. In theory, Ang’s corroboration would have strengthened the case against Estrada and the chance of convicting him. In reality, the Sandiganbayan dismissed as incredible the testimony about the delivery of P130 million to Estrada’s residence.
Another example of the “areglo” policy in our criminal justice system has to do with accused who turn state witnesses which is found in Article 119 of the Rules of Court. In a nutshell, when two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of a crime, any of the accused who “does not appear to be the most guilty” may be discharged to become a state witness when there is “no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused.”
Again, a condonation of the ineptitude of the police, government investigators and prosecutors. Can’t get evidence? Discharge one of the accused, make him state witness and let him rat on his partners. It’s less work, it’s cheaper, it’s faster. But is justice served? Let’s have another real-life example.
On April 4, 2001, Estrada was indicted on plunder charges while the Ombudsman gave Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson immunity from suit being the state witness in the plunder case. Immunity to a man who admitted he was Estrada’s partner cum bookkeeper cum delivery boy in jueteng operations. Immunity to a man who planned the diversion of the P130 million by coursing it through the bank accounts of third parties.
Well, rats in a sinking ship will always scramble for safety. No criminal justice system is perfect but, surely, the imperfections can stand objective scrutiny so that the lop-sidedness can be reduced. Our legal provisions on plea bargaining and discharge of accused to turn state witness were simply copied from Western models without taking into consideration how they would be abused considering that the “areglo” mentality has always been well-entrenched in our culture. And they have been abused. And they will be abused. Until they are scrapped.
Comments
21 Responses to “Rats in a sinking ship”We feast everyday!
I liked the movie especially the bit about Gerard Butler arguing in the courtroom. What if he continued lawyering instead of becoming a film star? Would he be able to charm his way in court? Ha ha.
About the movie, it does speak of the limitations of the justice system. And that, unfortunately, we are forced to live with. Change must indeed happen.
Is the inclusion of JDV III and Lozada as co accused an example that change is about to happen? Let’s wait and see.
This article was a column. If it weren’t for space constraints, I’d have included those two clowns JDV-with-the-new-hairdo and what’s-his-face Lozada. Kagigil how they’re posturing as heroes ha.
OT. Speaking of the holes in the justice system and also of Estrada- I was wondering what your 2 cents are regarding Erap running again for president this coming election.
He’s disqualified under the Constitution. I wrote about that before… Long before he declared he’s running. Asa pa sya.
“no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused”
So it will be alright to convict on the strength of ONE person’s testimony? I always had a problem with that one.
In the administration of criminal justice we’ve always had a problem with inept and corrupt policemen, the sloppy collection of evidence, the fabrication of evidence. The way we ‘areglo’ in all levels makes justice in the Philippine setting such a joke.
The even bigger irony is that it is a well-accepted principle that eyewitness account is the most unreliable of all. If you have an eyewitness who is also guilty and who wants to avoid liability, just how much is the motivation for lying… eh di talagang tra la la.
We seem to forget that the prosecutor is limited by the evidence available to him to secure a conviction. In the Rules mentioned, any prosecutor worth his salt will not agree to a plea bargaining or the need for a state witness if he feels he can secure a conviction by virtue of the evidence available. If I were a prosecutor and is given a choice between letting an offender go scot free or securing a conviction on a lesser offense or by way of the help of a state witness, you and I both know it’s a no-brainer.
Why is there a presumption that the offender will go scot free unless one of his co-accused is accepted as state witness? The prosecutor CAN DIRECT the manner in which evidence can be gathered. In the Philippine setting the NBI is part of the Department of Justice. So when we talk of a prosecutor being limited by the evidence he’s got, it might be of his own doing.
Ma’am, that is not a presumption, that is a sad fact. The Rules clearly state that there is no other direct evidence available to secure a conviction – that presupposes that the prosecutor has done his job in seeking evidence but has found that the evidence available is not enough to secure a conviction. Note also that the discharge of the prospective state witness is with the concurrence of the court and that the testimony of the state witness can be corroborated in its material points.
However, I do agree about the state of evidence gathering and police work in the Philippines but that is not necessarily the fault of the prosecutors.
Yes, it is a presumption and it is the wrong one. Investigators and prosecutors only need to be more efficient instead of relying on one of the accused to decide to rat on his partners.
I think you’re misconstruing my statement to mean that prosecutors only agree to the rat-and-turn-state-witness policy when they have exhausted all means to gather evidence. That is not the case. Because allowing an accused to turn state witness is such a readily available convenience, in many cases it is in fact used as a convenience even when the means and opportunity to gather more evidence are at the disposal of the prosecutor.
Nope Ms. Connie, I have not misinterpreted your statement – I have read the Rules. They clearly state there is no other direct evidence available, ergo, the presumption that the prosecutors have done their job. As I’ve said, no prosecutor (of course, again, assuming they are good prosecutors) will agree to have a state witness if he feels he can secure conviction by the evidence available to him, including evidence he has tried to locate by the help of all government agencies at his disposal.
In the Philippines, “areglo” is not necessarily evil. In fact, it has been institutionalized, albeit in civil cases, and in a few criminal cases by way of the compulosory rules on mediation and arbitration.
As to the prosecutor relying on the state witness, these instances are the exception rather than the rule. Note that they only surface on the truly sensationalized cases. Ordinary cases are proved or disproved in courtroooms all over the country everyday by the evidence available, the pathetic state of evidence gathering notwithstanding.
Yes, you are misconstruing my statement because you’re trying to make it fit what you think to be the inherent presumption in the Rules of Court. And there you go imputing good faith that no prosecutor will agree unless etc. etc. That’s precisely what I’m saying — such presumption is not realistic. You think prosecutors are untouched by ineptitude and corruption? Hay, naku…
“…they only surface on the truly sensationalized cases…”
LOL Those are the only ones the public learns about because of medis coverage. 99.9% of settled cases don’t even get a second of media attention.
Stupid crackberry please delete the prev comment
Comment box on my fone’s too small and text didn’t scroll arrgh!
Nway
I’ve not seen Law and Order for a while but this brought it to mind.
I agree with Robert. If I have no option and the guy will be free, I will consider the plea bargain.
Now if only Gerard Butler can take care of the following:
a) Atong Ang
b) Erap
c) Gloria
d) Chavit
e) every other sycophant and trapo
Oh wait, there goes the whole bureaucracy as well
the film was great, even if there was so much blood (literally!), but the message was clear. After watching the film, it sure got me into thinking whether I am in the right field. I don’t really agree with areglos, especially with the lagay(s). It’s sad though that people always equate lagays and areglos with lawyers
As for Jun Lozada, I could just scream on his face. The way he acts “holy” since he’s now surrounded by nuns and priests…agghh!! the nerve!!
Ms. Connie: I don’t to miscontrue your statement to try and fit in what you think is my belief is an inherent presumption in the Rules. The Rules are there for everybody to read.. Besides, that is how you craft rules, you visualize a certain situation and address it by putting in place certain parameters which necessarily include certain presumptions. The rule on presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is still being applied by the Philippine Supreme Court in deciding cases.
I am of course not naive to believe that prosecutors are incorruptible, far from it. What I am saying is that the Rules have put in place enough safeguard to combat abuse.
As to having state witnesses and not being reported by the media, I have been regularly in court for the past five years and I have not encountered one case where there has been a state witness. It’s not as common as people might think they are.
Opps sorry, opening statement should haver read: “I don’t “have” to …
Idealism is good. But let it not get in the way of reality.
Settlements happen OUT OF COURT.
Injustice or shall I say unfairness is not only by the court of law but also by the media in covering a crime. In US, the alleged 2006 Duke University Lacrosse rape case got the full US MSM attention since the alleged victim was a black woman and the accused were all whites (those media PCsm). The accused eventually were all acquitted because the victim perjured herself and the county district attorney capitalized it for his own ambition for attorney general position. The county attorney was removed or fired(?) from his position and last time I checked, he is facing a lawsuit from those he has wrongfully indicted. Even the school faculties who has maligned the accused students are facing lawsuits. This one could be a very good movie. The (hackneyed?) triumph of right over wrong.
Take note of the above alleged crime compared with this one, in US also. The victims were white couples and the accused were black men (duh, my PCsm again). This were the gruesome rape and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. This did not get the same media coverage as the above case (with exception of FoxNews).
Read it in the web. Wikipedia for a starter.
Have you heard anything again from our local media on Erap’s brokering of the PLDT buyout finder’s fee? That was an alleged P3 Billion deal that worth media coverage specially from tabloid Ch 2 and 7 instead of GMA’s son buying a wine (brandy?) from a liquor store during this previous devastating storm.
An OT one (eto na naman ako).
As regards our local media, there is this hot news about global warming fraud (climategate as they call it). This is about a group of climate scientists in CRU England. Read the details for a starter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
In a nutshell, those climate alarmist are manipulating climate data to suit their desired result, (He he he, they always tell us it is the climate every time it gets hotter and it is the weather every time it gets colder.)
The thing is why is there is no mention of this in the local newscasts (TV and radio) and newspapers including the tabloids for the past 14 days that it has became known?
Napasubo ba sila sa pagigiging global warming alarmist (cultist?)?
Everyone is entitled to a proper defense, but sometimes I just don’t see how defense lawyers can live with themselves.