So it’s still going…
I’m talking about the whole Bong Revilla case; and as both the
defense and prosecution make their defense, here’s the thing—if the
case against the Senator is as airtight as they claim it to be, then why
can’t they seem to prove it without reasonable doubt?
Did this whole country just get swayed by public opinion? Did our
justice system fail its constituents by allowing themselves to get
swayed by the zeitgeist?
Perhaps there is no better case than this to show just how easily we
leave our objectivity at the door in the spirit of going with the flow.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m not for Bong Revilla, per se; it’s more
of—there might be more to this whole thing than meets the eye.
Especially since, despite assertions that this whole thing was a “done
deal”, all the prosecution was able to present are suppositions,
conjectures and hearsay.
The yardstick used by the Supreme Court in determining whether
evidence of guilt is strong or not is very stringent—
“[b]y judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of
whether proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. ‘Proof
evident’ or ‘Evident proof’ in this connection has been held to
mean clear, strong evidence which leads a well-guarded
dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has
been committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent,
and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is
administered. ‘Presumption great’ exists when the circumstances
testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be
drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased
judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other
conclusion.”
Following the law, being in jail for a capital offense requires nothing
less than strong evidence of guilt—where the guilt is determined
beyond reasonable doubt. So a person, as in the case of Bong
Revilla, being in detention pending litigation is already an exception to
this rule.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that Revilla should be in jail IF
AND ONLY IF there is clear and strong evidence that:
- Bong Revilla has been proven to have committed the crimes
and charged for it.
- Bong Revilla’s guilt can naturally be drawn from a strong, clear
and convincing set of evidence that excludes the possibility of
any other conclusion.
None of which was determined or set during his bail hearing. To date,
the main arguments remain to be conjecture and have always led
people to various other conclusions. Yes, it was presented to allude
to his guilt, but often it also reminds the public that, wait—that might
possibly explain what really happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment