The Reopening of an Archived 17 Year Old Case

        I’m a defense lawyer. The “defender of criminals” as usually tagged and labelled by the victims and private complainants. I was on my first and a half year as a practicing lawyer. This label has hurt my idealistic sense of justice and thought of swapping tables with the other counsel. But I can’t. Unlike private practitioners, I do not have that kind of privilege. I cannot choose my clients. My work chooses my clients for me.

        But today, I am a different person. I don’t give a damn about that Iabel anymore. I worked for truth and justice. I defend no criminal but protect the sacred rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution. I protect and defend the law which all lawyers promised to adhere and obey. Only that we have different roles and the law has many facets.

        The other day, I was appointed as counsel de officio in a murder case that has happened in the year 1995. The year today is 2012 and the accused is only up for arraignment. Someone may probably ask how and why the hell did the case sit for 17 years without the accused being tried. Well here’s the answer.

        This case is qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, scoffing at a corpse and advantage of superior strength with conspiracy among three accused. Apparently, two of the accused was tried for the case but one escaped. The two were convicted in the lower court while the other remained at large. After 17 years, one of the three accused who remained at large was arrested. And now, he stands for trial.

        There’s something peculiar about this case though.

       

        I went over the records of the case and was surprised to see it. It’s a two volume of records stitched together and as thick as a 6 or 7 inch medical book or dictionary. The information handed to me was in fact fragile and almost yellow in color. Typewritten using a manual typewriter and signed by no less than one of the oldest lawyers in town who used to be the provincial prosecutor back then. My mind is boggled. Not for the defense but for the prosecution. To my young lawyer mind, I thought, how will this case go?

        I was wondering how will the prosecution prove its case. This is a 17 year old case. My client is probably in his late fifties when apprehended. Will there be witnesses still available to testify? What about the relatives of the victim? Are they still interested to prosecute the case? Or are they even still alive?

        And after 17 years, how did this sit on my client’s conscience? IF, he is guilty at all.

        I read the decision involving the first two accused who were convicted. From the narration of facts by the lower court it appears that my present client was the one who shot the victim. I’m not surprised.

This case will probably involve depositions. My very own waterloo. But since this is a country where depositions are not highly in use, I wondered how will the prosecution do it.

That -- I can’t wait to find out.

A 1979 Murder Case

         The year was October 1979. A police officer sowed bullets to four persons by using his service firearm. The result? Two men were killed, a father and a son, the latter was only 20 years old. Two were seriously injured but has survived the shooting. The crime stemmed from a resentment between two families over a fist-fight involving the police officer’s son. After a long and protracted trial, the accused was convicted of three crimes: murder, a complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and another frustrated murder. The year is now October 2011. The convicted accused is being considered as a candidate for executive clemency. That day, I was talking to a relative of the two men who were killed and a victim herself.

I was stunned by the tale I heard. My guest was talking about a 1979 incident which happened in this province where I am currently practicing law. The depth of the story hit me with an impact which has made me tingling with thrill and excitement. It was a case involving a Supreme Court decision and the fact that I will play a role in it, albeit in a very limited way and unnoticeable, made me elated.

My guest is the sister and the daughter of the two victims who died. The other one who was shot but has survived is her cousin. She was there at the incident and got herself shot at too because of her presence in the crime scene. She was one of the two persons who survived the shooting. And the idea that the ex-police officer will soon be released by the grant of the executive clemency is unwelcome to her.

I was on my first year as a practicing lawyer and here I am using what little I know about the actual practice of law.

Opening old wounds. That was what I was thinking when she told me her story. The years that has passed didn’t seem to lessen the pain. She was still scared to meet the person responsible for the death of her father and brother and the gun shot wounds that she and her cousin has sustained. The fact that they might cross each other’s path again is obviously predictable.

What we did was to submit a comment about the grant of executive clemency on the convict. I did some searching and was able to dig the old case from the net. I was incensed by the detailed narration of facts in the Supreme Court decision and decided that this person should not be released even on executive clemency. I’m surprised that the death penalty was not imposed on him.  My sense of justice was pricked.

Executive clemency is the least of my favorite subject because I find it boring. Now, I have to review and study it. Well now, I gotta like what I hate.

As an opening salvo, I used the emotions of the victim to proved that we have a cause for stopping the grant. It was hard putting myself into the shoes of the victim because really, nobody felt what they felt during that time. It’s something unique to them. But after the short interview of my guest, and thank God I have an uncanny observation, I was able to share her pain. Hence when I started working on the comment,  words came rushing in my mind to my fingertips to the keyboard then finally to the screen of my laptop.

Next, hit the substance of executive clemency. This form of immunity is a privilege given by no other than the president himself. From the looks of it, the grant to him seems bulletproof. I was appalled. But I decided to go through it just the same. I reasoned out that penalty imposed to him is reclusion perpetua, he was disqualified even for a parole. He has not served half of his sentence because he flee during his appeal. The indemnity promised in the decision was never met. Finally, the convict was a previous police officer who abused his power and position to kill people, what’s the chance that he won’t do it again? He did not hesitate shooting four people using his service firearm out of revenge and over a simple fist-fight which does not even directly involve him. In short, we showed that this person is a threat to the society and killing is something which is innate to him. I ended it with an excerpt I found somewhere while doing my research, reminding that this power should be exercised with precaution and sensitivity to the feelings of the victim’s families.

After that, I never heard from my guest anymore. But that day, I found out that I’m loving my job.

PD 705 as amended by EO 277 (Secs. 78 thereof), Limited Discussion. What the hell is the Forestry Code all about?

Being a city-slicker, I've never been familiar with environmental laws nor with anything that has got something to do with our kalikasan. That's why when somebody came in the office asking for help about PD 705, I was dumbfounded. And because I worked in a province, I thought this law will always be in my way. So... I studied it and did a little research on it. But my focus is on these two sections, to wit, section 78 and 68 thereof.

Sec. 78 provides:
"Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forestland, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnership, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found."

What's peculiar about this law is that the penalty provided for the above mentioned affense is the penalty provided by the RPC in the crimes of Theft and Qualified Theft.

This section has two separate and distinct offenses:

1. The cutting, gathering , collecting and removing of timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, from private land without any authority; and

2. Possession of timber or other forest laws and regulations without legal documents.

Basically, the 1st offense would cover the cutting, gathering..etc. of forest products in private lands. The cutting, gathering, collecting or removing of said forest products includes Mangroves and its species. Whatever its species are, I have no way of knowing. But I guess one would need a botanist to determine if a tree is a relative of the mangrove tree or not. So if you live near the sea and there are trees there, beware what you cut. Baka bawal po putulin ang punong yan. For references, you might want to check R.A. 7161.

This section also punishes the transportation, movement or conveyance of forest products without legal documents. Mere possession gives the presumption that you own the forest products, therefore if you were caught transporting lumbers, which by the way is also classified as forest products, without any papers or documents you're in big trouble.

Who are liable under this section?

1. cutter

2. gatherer

3. collector

4. remover

5. possessor  or any or all persons who appear to be responsible for the commission of the offense

6. partnership, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession of such forest products.

Who could arrest?

1. Forest officer or DENR employee

2. Phil. Constabulary or Integrated National Police

3. Brgy. Officials

How to prosecute: (section 80 of PD 705)

• Deliver within 6 hours from time of arrest and seizure the offender and confiscated products.
• File the proper complaint with the appropriate official designated by law to conduct preliminary investigation and file information in court.

We have limited cases or jurisprudence on PD 705, but the following cases might help:

• Merida vs. People, GR 158182 June 12, 2008
• DENR vs. Daraman, GR 125797 Feb. 15, 2007
• Aquino vs. Peole, GR 165448 July 27, 2009
• Taopa vs. People, GR 184098 Nov. 25, 2008

I am a nature lover. In fact, I would have considered being an environmental lawyer. But given the small amount of knowledge I know about environmental laws, I'm bound to fail. But.. Here's the catch, I'm willing to learn. And that I think - will get me anywhere.

Women's Rights Vis-a-vis Abusive and Womanizing Husband

Yesterday, a client visited me to ask my advice about her husband who has been having an affair with another woman for more than a year now. Of course, because I am also a woman, I can't help myself from sympathizing with her. FYI, majority of the people who ask for legal advice are wives who were abandoned by their husbands without support or any means of livelihood. This is a good start to discuss RA 9262 or the Anti-VAWC Law. RA 9262 became a law on March 8, 2004. It is a beautiful law intended to safeguard the rights of women and children.

Q: What are the remedies available to woman who was abandoned by her husband under RA 9262?
A: A wife has 3 options:
1. file a civil case for damages with protection order for support;
2. file a criminal case for psychological violence/sexual violence with protection order for support; or
3. just file a protection order for support.

Q: Do u still have undergo a barangay conciliation before you go to court?
A: NO, RA 9262 cases are not under the Brgy. Justice System, hence no conciliation is necessary.

Q: What would be the result if a protection order for support was given?
A: The court will order the man and the employer to set aside a certain percentage of the man's salary to be remitted directly to the woman.

Q: How can you avail of support under RA 9262?
A: Ask the court (RTC) to issue a protection order under Sec. 8, par. g of RA 9262.

Q: Can a Protection Order include a provision for custody of minor child?
A: Yes, a protection order once granted may include the custody of minor children under Sec. 8, par. f.

Q: What is the basis for asking support under RA 9262?
A: It is provided in Sec. 5, par. e, subpar. 2 of RA 9262. It provides there that it is crime to deprive or threaten to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support.

Disorder in Court

NOTE**** this is a repost, I found this on the net while searching. I do not own this work though I've had funny moments in courts too. This is guaranteed to tickle the funny bones of any one who is fascinated in law and anyone with just the right amount of sense of humor.

The following quotations are taken from official court records across the nation, showing how funny and embarrassing it is that recorders operate at all times in courts of law, so that even the slightest inadvertence is preserved for posterity.

• Lawyer: "What is your date of birth?"
• Witness: "July 15th."
• Lawyer: "What year?"
• Witness: "Every year."

--------------------------------------------

• Lawyer: "What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?"
• Witness: "Gucci sweats and Reeboks."

 -------------------------------------------

• Lawyer: "Can you describe what the person who attacked you looked like?"
• Witness: "No. He was wearing a mask."
• Lawyer: "What was he wearing under the mask?"
• Witness: "Er...his face."

 -----------------------------------------

• Lawyer: "How old is your son, the one living with you?"
• Witness: "Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which."
• Lawyer: "How long has he lived with you?"
• Witness: "Forty-five years."

 ----------------------------------------

• Lawyer: "What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?"
• Witness: "He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'"
• Lawyer: "And why did that upset you?"
• Witness: "My name is Susan."

 ---------------------------------------

• Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
• Witness: "No."
• Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
• Witness: "No."
• Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
• Witness: "No."
• Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
• Witness: "No."
• Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
• Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
• Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
• Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."

--------------------------------------

• Lawyer: "And you check your radar unit frequently?"
• Officer: "Yes, I do."
• Lawyer: "And was your radar unit functioning correctly at the time you had the plaintiff on radar?"
• Officer: "Yes, it was malfunctioning correctly."

 ------------------------------------

• Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
• Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."

 ---------------------------------

• Lawyer: "The youngest son, the 20 year old, how old is he?"

 --------------------------------

• Witness: "He was about medium height and had a beard."
• Lawyer: "Was this a male or a female?"

 --------------------------------

• Lawyer: "I show you Exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture."
• Witness: "That's me."
• Lawyer: "Were you present when that picture was taken?"

 --------------------------------

• Lawyer: "Do you know how far pregnant you are now?"
• Witness: "I'll be three months on November 8."
• Lawyer: "Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?"
• Witness: "Yes."
• Lawyer: "What were you doing at that time?"

 -------------------------------

• Lawyer: "She had three children, right?"
• Witness: "Yes."
• Lawyer: "How many were boys?"
• Witness: "None."
• Lawyer: "Were there girls?"

 -------------------------------

• Lawyer: "You say that the stairs went down to the basement?"
• Witness: "Yes."
• Lawyer: "And these stairs, did they go up also?"

 ------------------------------

• Lawyer: (realizing he was on the verge of asking a stupid question) "Your Honor, I'd like to strike the next question."

 ------------------------------

• Lawyer: "Do you recall approximately the time that you examined the body of Mr. Eddington at the Rose Chapel?"
• Witness: "It was in the evening. The autopsy started about 8:30pm."
• Lawyer: "And Mr. Eddington was dead at the time, is that correct?"

 -----------------------------

• Lawyer: "What is your brother-in-law's name?"
• Witness: "Borofkin."
• Lawyer: "What's his first name?"
• Witness: "I can't remember."
• Lawyer: "He's been your brother-in-law for years, and you can't remember his first name?"
• Witness: "No. I tell you, I'm too excited." (rising and pointing to his brother-in-law) "Nathan, for heaven's sake, tell them your first name!"

----------------------------

• Lawyer: "Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York?"
• Witness: "I refuse to answer that question.
• Lawyer: "Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago?"
• Witness: "I refuse to answer that question.
• Lawyer: "Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?"
• Witness: "No."

 --------------------------

• Lawyer: "Are you married?"
• Witness: "No, I'm divorced."
• Lawyer: "And what did your husband do before you divorced him?"
• Witness: "A lot of things I didn't know about."

 --------------------------

• Lawyer: "Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?"
• Witness: "All my autopsies have been performed on dead people."

 ---------------------------

• Lawyer: "Did he pick the dog up by the ears?"
• Witness: "No."
• Lawyer: "What was he doing with the dog's ears?"
• Witness: "Picking them up in the air."
• Lawyer: "Where was the dog at this time?"
• Witness: "Attached to the ears."

----------------------------

• Lawyer: "When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?"
• Other Lawyer: "Objection. That question should be taken out and shot."

 --------------------------

• Lawyer: "And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?"
• Witness: "Oral."
• Lawyer: "How old are you?"
• Witness: "Oral."

 ---------------------------

• Lawyer: "Now, doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn't know anything about it until the next morning?"

 ---------------------------

• Lawyer: "And what did he do then?"
• Witness: "He came home, and next morning he was dead."
• Lawyer: "So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?"

 ---------------------------

• Lawyer: "So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?"
• Witness: "I didn't see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital."
• Lawyer: "It was covered?"
• Witness: "Yes, bandaged."
• Lawyer: "Then, later on...what did you see?"
• Witness: "I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head."

 -----------------------------

• Lawyer: "Could you see him from where you were standing?"
• Witness: "I could see his head."
• Lawyer: "And where was his head?"
• Witness: "Just above his shoulders."

 ----------------------------

• Lawyer: "Do you drink when you're on duty?"
• Witness: "I don't drink when I'm on duty, unless I come on duty drunk."

 ----------------------------

• Lawyer: "Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?"
• Witness: "The victim lived."

----------------------------

• Lawyer: "Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?"
• Witness: "Because he was argumentary, and he couldn't pronunciate his words."

Dreams Do Come True

When I was young, I had a lot of dreams. I wanted to be a teacher, an actress, a news anchor, and even a nun. Never in my wildest dreams have I thought that I wanted to become a lawyer. Life has a funny way of turning out differently though. Right after graduating from high school, my father decided that I should be a lawyer. And so, I was persuaded to take the path where I thought I'll never tread. But I also have to admit that I was ready to go wherever life takes me during that time. I have no idea how to rule my life, young and as carefree as I was.

My journey in law school was not an easy one. I bet all law students will agree with  me on this. To survive, I needed to double (as in double times ten) my effort in studying. Goodness, I was forced to do a lot of somersaults just to pass in a subject. I was not the best student in the class but I know I've made a few impression. To cut the long story short, I was slowly taking the challenge that law school represents. I was out on the leash every time I know an answer to any question in the exam or recitation. I was deeply affected and depressed whenever my performance is poor. I was taking it seriously. In other words, I dreaded and was thrilled by law school life. Life in law school is bitter-sweet indeed.

At last! I finished law school - the final and true test has come for me to take. The Bar Exams. The exam which will give me the key to open the Pandora's box. An event, the outcome of which, will change my life forever. And it did!

I was one of the happiest people in the world when I passed the bar exam. It has made a tiny speck seemed to sparkle. I, the tiny speck has taken my place under the sun. I am now on my first year as a lawyer, and still learning more in practice. For anyone who thought they'll never end up into anything, don't stop believing and working. We've all had negative thoughts once in a while. But if we hang-on to our dreams dearly - one day, it will hit you.. Dreams do come true after all.