Injustice in politics

I was watching the news last night and I couldn't help but react on this issue.

The DOJ, after conducting a re-investigation, asserted that Hubert Webb WAS NOT in the US when the Vizconde killing took place. This is contrary to Webb's defense of alibi which was initially accorded greater weight by the Supreme Court as against the testimony of Jessica Alfaro who later on adjudged as not credible witness.

I am wondering why the DOJ conducted a re-investigation on this case in the first place. With these findings, they only worsen the scenario. Clearly, the DOJ rebutted the findings of the highest court of the land which had long become final and executory. It is to be understood, however, that this latest development would not necessarily revoke the acquittal of Webb and his co-accused from the charges since SC decisions are, again, final and executory per se. The newly discovered witnesses and evidence are, practically, futile so to speak. So, why bother to re-investigate? To give false hope to the aggrieved, Lauro Vizconde? Or this is another trial in publicity?.

I am not a lawyer myself. But I fully understood the contents of the SC decision acquitting Webb and other accused from the crime imputed against them by the hapless Lauro Visconde. In the said decision, the SC ruled that the prosecution has not sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of Alfaro, ruling otherwise, giving credence to Webb's alibi that he was in the US when the incident happened, making it impossible for him to be one of the perpetrators. In support thereof, the SC cited the maxim “it is better to acquit ten criminals than to convict one innocent accused”. According to the magistrates, in criminal cases, the word “beyond reasonable doubt” should be construed in verbatim.

I, on the other hand, read the dissenting opinion of Justice Martin S. Villarama in the said case. I was rather convince about his intellectual analysis regarding the possibility of Webb's participation to the crime. According to him, giving the connections and wealth of the Webb family, it is not possible for Hubert Webb to freely leave and enter the country anytime he so desires. There was even a question about the authenticity of Webb's passport because the Bureau of Immigration had no record whatsoever of his arrival and departure from Manila to US on the questioned date and time. Lastly, the date of the video footage that he presented does not appear to be the exact date when the merciless Vizconde killing occurred. Justice Villarama, thus, found no probative value on this evidence at hand.

Which is which now? Does it mean the latest decision of the SC, which is now considered as jurisprudence, in effect, erroneous. If so, how could the people rely and trust an institution whose reputation has obviously been tainted?

While the whole nation had respected and accepted the decision of the SC in the Vizconde case under the presumption of regularity, it seems now that our judiciary is not serious in its mandate to serve fair and equal justice to the people.

At the end of the day, Lauro is still the LOSER in this fight....