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.