It escapes comprehension how a material of high legal value (sperm specimen) could be nowhere to be found. Instead, the NBI and the RTC are pointing accusing fingers on one another as to who has custody of such a sample. It could have provided the key to solve the case in a much brighter light – at least, to prove or disprove, if such were that of Hubert Webb or other. But be that as it may, not even the Supreme Court ever attached any more significance to it.
If it must take over 15 years to rule on the case lodged against the economic or political elites, one can imagine how hard enough it would be for poor folks to get the noose out of their necks no matter their possible innocence of the crime they have been charged with. Quite predictably, they shall forever languish in jail as if by some unfortunate ‘birthright’. After all, in a young country like the Philippines, it seems that everything is at its infancy.
The Fourth Estate and its proverbial power to make or unmake kings must have made of a viewing universe captive, receptive, and hypnotized in a punishing length of time in blind acceptance of all its worldviews. In short, the media helped a lot to educate or un-educate us in our understanding of burning issues that concern us. It never cease to hype or sensationalize too much as to becloud the truth, the just, and the real. Thus, each time it is first to cast its shadow on issues, who will still see the truth, rightly?
The Supreme Court now ruled acquittal of Hubert Webb and five co-accused on finding that, in effect, they did not commit the crime. Or was it on assessment that Jessica Alfaro, despite her testimony, failed the quality standard set forth by the High Court? What kind of testimony did media help communicate to us – the viewing public? If placed in the weighing scale, pure evidence on the one end, and anecdotal testimony on the other, which must the court or judge or justice attach high premium to?
And then left to its own devices, look at what grave peril can NBI create in having propped up their own asset, Jessica Alfaro, if and only if, to substitute evidence for rather fancy testimony? In the larger context of our criminal justice system, how can anyone reconstruct the ‘starting points’ when investigators, almost always, give us a version of blatantly half-truths, distorted viewpoints, motherhood claims? Be it NBI or PNP, their operations and the manner they conduct them (e.g. Imbestigador) lend suspicion on whether it must have been lawful or legitimate. Except, no one even cries wolf?
Why did the lower court depend if not rely on mere testimony? Why did it not proceed with the evidence-based approach? Many things have been left unexplained. For instance, who hired Jessica Alfaro as an ‘asset’ and her ‘job description’ since she is paid out of taxpayer’s money? Why was there an NBI Task Force on this Vizconde massacre case? Who must have woven all these conspiracy plots? Who were the conspiracy theorists behind this unfolding charade?
The acquittal must carry the responsibility on the part of the Supreme Court or more cognizant agency of government to somehow indemnify those who were found after 15 years to have not committed the crime they were charged of. But how would want compute on precisely what these “opportunity losses” could have been? At the very least, the government is better off not having to subsidize 6 young boys who should have walked free since the time they were wrongly charged or accused.
It is said that some 60% of the cases lodged in our courts are classified as drug-related cases. And apparently, no arm of government has taken more positive course of action to address this problem nor will it take such positive course of action in the immediate future. This should let Congress think of much-need policy formulations to preclude this embarrassing incompetence in the future.
The Filipino people were duped here. Why it must take two decades and a half to discover the truth is beyond our understanding. From where I stand, our courts, our judges, and our Supreme Court itself must be sick. And I have lingering cynicism on why must too many associate justices in that High Court inhibit themselves, whatever their individual reasons maybe?