Vizconde Case: A Slap In the Philippine Justice System?

The recently decided case on the Vizconde massacre where the accused were acquitted for murder stirred remorse reactions from Filipinos here and abroad. This case is indeed a sensational one as it involves affluent personalities in the country.

I have read people tweet and post shoutouts about "justice delayed, justice denied in the Philippines" and people resenting the decision of the court magistrates on the acquittal of the accused. I could not help but react too because I am taking the steps to become one of the future members of the justice system in the country and it is my advocacy to help people who are in need of justice - the main reason why I am in law school. Taking into account how people spite the court for what they call "unfairness in the justice system that favors only the wealthy and powerful" I adamantly refuse to believe that we have no hope in our criminal justice system.




The Supreme Court is tasked to render judicial review. It is not its responsibility to conduct trial which is the main responsibility of the lower court where the facts and issue of the case are exhaustively deliberated with the course of a court trial. The SC reviews whether there has been grave abuse or excess or lack of discretion in the decisions rendered by the lower branches of the judiciary. The decision made by the SC is mainly based on the facts, evidence, and information filed before the court that are presented to it.

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines requires that to convict an accused for a criminal charge there must be certainty of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Unlike in civil case where a mere preponderance of evidence will suffice to hold a plantiff guilty of the charges, the penal law demands that evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt should be present to justify conviction because of the seriousness and afflictive penalties a convict person will suffer upon conviction.

Furthermore, in a criminal prosecution the burden of proof is laid down on the shoulders of the prosecuting lawyers to prove that the accused are indeed guilty of the charges against them. Thus they should be able to provide sufficient evidence to nail the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A defense lawyer will merely try to discredit any witness the prosecution will provide. Perhaps the prosecution failed to provide convincing and tangent evidence that will convince the justices of the guilt of the accused. The magistrates of the court, even if they are not sufficiently convinced the accused are innocent, could not make a subjective decision. What is required of them is to render decision based according to the requisites provided by law to render conviction, one of which is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of supporting evidence that would provide objective basis on the guilt of the accused the court could not convict them of a crime that has the highest penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Perhaps if the DNA test would have materialized and the result comes out positive that points the accused as the perpetrators of the crime the decision of the court could have been different. The defense lawyer could not discredit the DNA test technology hence the case would have prospered to convince the justices to make a conviction. Taking all these into account, I understand why the court rendered the decision for acquittal.

It is sad but its true that the wealthy and powerful can possibly manipulate justice by tampering with evidence that can change the court decision in their favor. But I am not quick in judging the Supreme Court justices to be bias in their decision knowing that they are bound by the technical requirements of the law when making a decision and they only acted upon the evidence presented to them.

There is still hope in the Philippine justice system. If we lose hope in it then we have given up our hope to fight for justice. Not everyone is deprived of justice. Others obtained victory too. It is only a matter of gameplay of evidence and wits when it comes to a court trial and credible witnesses are always valuable most of the time.