Criminal law – Page 121 – marichulambino.com

(William Turner. Regulus. 1828-1837. Oil on canvas. Tate Gallery, London, UK. Right-clicked from www.abcgallery.com)

She could have used anything as bargaining chip.

She could have mortgaged their 2010 and gave I.O.U.’s on the vice-presidential and presidential slots; promised government machinery support.

She could have brought loads of money. She could have accommodated them in the Comelec posts, thrown in juicy Cabinet posts;maybe even the Speakership if that was still up.

But she traded the one true possibly valuable legacy of her mandate-less rule, and that is, the integrity of judicial processes. Of course, not having a real mandate, or at best having a questionable one, she is the last to care about integrity of the judicial processes. It’s not true that she agonized over the grant of pardon. She didn’t even read what she signed; the terms of the pardon are not couched in the language of the Revised Penal Code provisions on pardon. Of course, legal positivism being the dominant school of thought (more rhetorically called “rule of law”; a phrase i try not to use, if you have the numbers, it’s legal; i invoke specific laws and rules being violated), it was within her power to grant pardon even if this had been unprecedented in haste (six weeks) and unusual in manner (negotiations started two years ago and became more open weeks before judgment became final). And “grant of pardon” being written in the Constitution as part of her powers, you would not be able to legally challenge it unless you are prepared to say that all her acts and backroom deals have undermined and subverted the integrity of the judicial processes (anyone up for that kind of confrontation in the Supreme Court?)

Of course, the prosecution should be happy. They won the case; caught the biggest fish of that time and successfully prosecuted and convicted him. Their work is done, the case folders bundled and tied up.

It’s just that…

It’s just that, maybe, ten years from now, we’d turn a street corner, somewhere, and a Filipino would ask , weren’t you part of that thing….what was that… yeah, what was that all about? I mean, what went on in there? Why is he back in power? Why are the heirs of the convicted plunderer back in Malacañang? Why didn’t the country turn a new leaf? When we closed that chapter. Weren’t you part of that…what was that….

And we’d say, we were just the lawyers there , it wasn’t up to us.

Because by then, if that happened, we’d be flicking soft leather beige gloves handling immigration cases in some temperate country. Jim Paredes and ten million Filipinos who left earlier had been correct after all, all this time, about this country. Those who stayed turned out to be the biggest dunces of all time; slow to catch on. (Or is a convicted plunderer back in power, any worse than an unindicted plunderer still in power.)

Or an alternative future.

Yes, we were part of that. That thing. We removed her from office. She paid for it. She didn’t bother to go through the impeachment trial in the Senate, she resigned after we got 80 signatures in the House. It went well. As it turned out, she had a rest house in Pampanga. We only had to build walls five feet high. No, not us anymore, our former students handled the criminal prosecution of her case. They were better. We were overwrought with pride watching them. Now, nobody wants to be President anymore, only the ex-nuns and ex-priests can afford the sacrifice. The future is always better when you turn a new leaf.

And we’d still be in a tropical country. You think.

Choose your future.

Rogier van der Weyden. “St. George and the Dragon”. c. 1432. Oil on wood. The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, USA. Right-clicked from abcgallery.com

Don’t return the money yet. Pampanga governor Ed Panlilio should not return the money (the P500,000.oo) or spend it, it is evidence. He should mark it, document the serial numbers for future use as evidence.

Now that Bulacan governor Jonjon Mendoza has also confirmed an hour ago that he too was given a bag of money (also P500,000.oo), if it is possible, he might be prevailed upon too, to hold on to the money for future use as evidence. They will not have any criminal liability (or any liability springing from any criminal act) since they voluntarily gave the information and if they could be prevailed upon to testify. As everyone knows, there is a law exempting from criminal liability those who give information on acts that may constitute corrupt practices.

Under PD 749, any person who voluntarily gives information on acts that constitute corrupt practices and other forms of dishonesty on the part of public officials and who willingly testifies, shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment with regard to such offense (and this applies to bribe-givers as well). The PD is entitled “Granting immunity to givers of bribes xxx and their accomplices” applies also to those who received money that may have been given to them as corrupt practice (“accomplices”, witting or unwitting. ) Here are the provisions:

“Presidential Decree 749. xxxSection 1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Articles 210, 211, and 212 of the Revised Penal Code; Republic Act Numbered Three Thousand Nineteen, as amended; Section 345 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code and other provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned; and other laws, rules and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse; and who willingly testifies against any public official or employee for such violation shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to which his information and testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided; that this immunity may be enjoyed even in cases where the information and testimony are given against a person who is not a public official but who is a principal, or accomplice, or accessory in the commission of any of the above-mentioned violations: Provided, further, that this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness notwithstanding that he offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public official or his accomplice for such gift or bribe-giving; and Provided, finally, that the following conditions concur:

“1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and regulations;

“2. The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;

“3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;

“4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points; and

“5. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. xxx “Section 3. All preliminary investigations conducted by a prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and all proceedings undertaken in connection therewith, shall be strictly confidential or private in order to protect the reputation of the official under investigation in the event that the report proves to be unfounded or no prima facie case is established. xxx”

Based on the circumstances surrounding the giving of “cash gifts” (that it was given contemporaneously with an official meeting of the League of Provincial Governors held in Malacañang) and that apparently it was given by Palace staff, it appears that the “cash gifts” came from the host (or hostess) of the luncheon meeting.

In addition, those who would ask questions of the two governors should listen carefully to what they say. In particular, Governor Jonjon Mendoza said that the two bags of money (one for him and the other for Governor Panlileo) was given to him right after the meeting, while he was still inside the Palace, by a female person. When he talked, the moment was lost when it was not ferreted out from him: 1. the description of the person who handed the bags of money; 2. was she wearing a uniform, office wear, a suit, etc.; 3. was she wearing an employee’s i.d. or visitor’s i.d. or none; 4.details on her physical characteristics; 5.was she seen in the room during the meeting; etc. 6. would he recognize her again? etc. She’s the link. She’s more important than what the governor felt at that moment or such other questions. (she’ll probaly be reassigned now, so the moment was lost.) (okay, steal ideas here, everybody does.)