In criminal trial, the public prosecutor is seldom admired as a protagonist. Most fiction writers depict him or her as scheming, unscrupulous and irrationally bent on moving all heavens to send a pitiful accused to hell. Foreign tv series do not give much credit to his or her work. Save for a few, i.e. Sharks, Law and Order, they give greater emphasis on the rights of persons accused of crimes rather than on public duty to secure that law and order are not sacrificed in the names of populism and sensationalism.
I always discourage my students from watching Filipino movies and tv series showing or depicting criminal trials. My primary concern is the lack of research of our tv and movie writers, directors or producers about the general principles of criminal trial. Imagine an actor, (playing the role of a defense attorney), lambasting another who purports to be a private attorney appearing for the government in a criminal trial—how inaccurate and misleading! Of course the public cannot be expected to know that criminal trials cannot proceed without a fiscal or public prosecutor. Their objective is public entertainment, not public education--but does this give writers or directors the right to impress that the public is stupid?
Well, the public do not need to feign ignorance of how stupid the show is. They have the right to demand that the informative content of the show should be generally correct.
Public prosecutors are knights in shining armor. They are the last line of defense against criminal conducts and the society’s failure to protect the weak against the abuses of the strong. Theoretically, their primary duty is not to convict but to see that justice is done.
Despite the cynicism and distrust to the institution where they belong, they continue to be one of the indispensable pillars of the criminal justice system. They are knights of Justice!
We hope that our public prosecutors will always be steadfast to public trust. They have the responsibility to keep their ranks from influences and internal defects that continue to tarnish their image in the eyes of the people. It may not be easy, and surely cannot be done overnight, but transforming the criminal justice system starts with the firm commitment and faith to one’s country and people.
My salute to all public prosecutors!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
a de facto precedent
I have handled at least seven rape cases in the past when I was still working in the Public Attorney’s Office. I remember only one conviction in those cases; the others were settled out of court and in two cases, the accused were acquitted.
When I resigned from the PAO in 2005, I promised that I would not take rape cases except if I would be appearing as a private prosecutor. I know how difficult it is to prosecute a rape case. Well, defending persons accused of rape is difficult and is especially very difficult when the victim is a minor.
I do not blame Nicole for entering into an amicable settlement with her abuser. (Anyway, I do not advise my clients, even when I was still in the Public Attorney’s Office, to compromise their cases. To me, you cannot and should not compromise a criminal case. However, as I always say, you cannot dictate to him or her not to accept or enter into a compromise.)
Also, I do not blame her if she executed an affidavit of recantation although the contents of her affidavit are very disappointing. However, I feared that her affidavit, thanks to the publicity that media has extended to her case, would have grave implications to her case and to other rape cases. But of course, a rape victim, or anyone for that matter, has no obligation to the rest of the world—it’s her life and her decision.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is another thing. I detest the manner that the decision was written. Given that there was no evidence to affirm Smith’s conviction, the decision could have been written simply as to limit its implication only to that case.
Just as Nicole’s case was used as propaganda by some people, the decision could also be used to repackage the image of an accused and to shift the blame to the victim. The decision institutionalized “victim-blaming”.
“Romantic episode”—what a phrase! Soon this phrase will find its place in fiscal’s records and court's transcripts and decisions as veritable defense in rape cases. There is no doubt about it—it will be a de facto precedent. Too bad, the Court of Appeals had unintentionally coined an ingenious defense for rapists and would be rapists!
When I resigned from the PAO in 2005, I promised that I would not take rape cases except if I would be appearing as a private prosecutor. I know how difficult it is to prosecute a rape case. Well, defending persons accused of rape is difficult and is especially very difficult when the victim is a minor.
I do not blame Nicole for entering into an amicable settlement with her abuser. (Anyway, I do not advise my clients, even when I was still in the Public Attorney’s Office, to compromise their cases. To me, you cannot and should not compromise a criminal case. However, as I always say, you cannot dictate to him or her not to accept or enter into a compromise.)
Also, I do not blame her if she executed an affidavit of recantation although the contents of her affidavit are very disappointing. However, I feared that her affidavit, thanks to the publicity that media has extended to her case, would have grave implications to her case and to other rape cases. But of course, a rape victim, or anyone for that matter, has no obligation to the rest of the world—it’s her life and her decision.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals is another thing. I detest the manner that the decision was written. Given that there was no evidence to affirm Smith’s conviction, the decision could have been written simply as to limit its implication only to that case.
Just as Nicole’s case was used as propaganda by some people, the decision could also be used to repackage the image of an accused and to shift the blame to the victim. The decision institutionalized “victim-blaming”.
“Romantic episode”—what a phrase! Soon this phrase will find its place in fiscal’s records and court's transcripts and decisions as veritable defense in rape cases. There is no doubt about it—it will be a de facto precedent. Too bad, the Court of Appeals had unintentionally coined an ingenious defense for rapists and would be rapists!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)