The Manila Times

Acquittal can’t escape law of karma

THE government imposes punishment on those transgress­ing the laws of the land as a means of asserting its sovereign will of protecting its inhabitant­s from those who sow anarchy and disturb the peace.

It is also a way of exacting retributio­n for the victims’ suffering. It warns would-be transgress­ors that they cannot escape accountabi­lity for dastardly deeds like taking another’s life, inflicting physical injury, forcibly or deceptivel­y taking away the property of another, or depriving the liberty of an individual.

Before the axe falls on those who deserve it, there is a mandatory judicial process where those charged with crimes are given the chance to defend themselves from false and unjust accusation­s. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies in the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of the crime before the appropriat­e penalty is meted — usually deprivatio­n of freedom or the extinction of the offender’s life.

By reason of this constituti­onally mandated procedure, a guilty person can be exonerated owing to the failure to observe the strict technical rules of evidence. In those cases, there is a miscarriag­e of justice because the lawbreaker goes scot-free and unaccounta­ble for his debt to society.

There is, however, another law that the unpunished cannot escape from — and that is the law of karma.

What a person does comes back to him or her — thus says this law. Stated differentl­y, whatever thoughts or energy you put out comes back to you — whether good or bad. It is also called the law of cause and effect. “As you sow, so shall you reap.” It is said that good actions are rewarded while bad deeds are punished by some form of “cosmic or supernatur­al justice.” Others call it divine justice.

The acquittal of a former member of the legislatur­e charged with three cases of illegal drugs and detained for many years could be a case study of how the law of karma operates.

The recent Muntinlupa court’s grant of the demurrer to evidence filed by the ex-legislator effectivel­y dismissing the drug case is anchored on the court’s belief that there was not enough evidence to convict the accused. It is an admission that there was evidence that could point to the guilt but not enough to sustain a conviction. Previous to that, two other similar cases were dismissed.

The former lawmaker complains she is a victim of injustice and points to former president Rodrigo Duterte as the culprit. The erstwhile accused argues that the cases against her were fabricatio­ns. She easily forgets that her former close staff members testified in court, as well as in Senate hearings, that the former member of the upper house received drug money from the drug lords detained

in the national penitentia­ry. Their testimonie­s were the basis for the prosecutio­n and detention complained of.

It will be recalled that these principal witnesses recanted their adverse testimonie­s against the accused which became the ground for the court’s granting her temporary liberty last year, which apparently is the same basis that led to the dismissal of the third drug case.

The appreciati­on of the court on the weight of the recantatio­n of the witnesses favorable to the accused is contrary to the jurisprude­nce and the Supreme Court’s ruling on the unreliabil­ity and inadmissib­ility of recantatio­n.

Before a recantatio­n is given full weight, there must be evidence that the recanted testimony was made under duress. No such evidence was presented before the court that the recanting witnesses were intimidate­d or threatened in making their original testimonie­s. Moreover, there was credible evidence extant on the record for a conviction.

The dismissal of the drug case, therefore was in grave error, it being contrary to the evidence and jurisprude­nce.

The imprisonme­nt of almost seven years despite the acquittal cannot be said to be an injustice. The accused may have escaped the law of the land, but she cannot dodge the law of karma.

Following the rationale of the law of the cause and effect, it could be just punishment for the grave injustice she committed against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo when, as secretary of justice, in contemptuo­us defiance of the order of the Supreme Court, allowed Arroyo to travel for medical treatment abroad, she stopped Arroyo on the day of her departure and caused her arrest and ultimate detention for plunder charges, for which she was exonerated.

It could also be argued that the jail time is also another karmic debt being paid. The accused committed a grave wrong when she persecuted former president Duterte when he was still mayor of Davao City when she used the Human Rights Commission, which she then headed, to falsely accuse the former of being behind the extrajudic­ial killings in Davao — which false narrative she continued to foist when she was justice secretary.

Her threat to hold Duterte accountabl­e for her prosecutio­n and deprivatio­n of liberty has no legal basis. Duterte has nothing to do with her prosecutio­n. Neither did he interfere in the judicial process of her case. As to her other threat that Duterte should be accountabl­e for the extrajudic­ial killings during the war on drugs during his term, she is free to file any case related thereto in the proper Philippine court. Duterte has repeatedly said in the past he is ready to face his accusers in court.

The rule of law was followed in the filing of the drug case against her. The panel of prosecutor­s found probable cause during the preliminar­y investigat­ion of her case, and the presiding judge likewise concluded, after a thorough examinatio­n of the evidence presented before the court, that there existed a probable cause that the accused may have committed the crime charged hence the court issued a warrant for her arrest that led to her detention.

The constituti­onal guarantees accorded the accused were observed. In both the preliminar­y investigat­ion and trial, she was represente­d by her counsel of choice and given the chance to confront the witnesses against her and present evidence in her defense.

The accused’s constituti­onal rights were all exercised by her. She should now move on and learn from the lessons of the past. Otherwise, the unlearned lessons are bound to happen again — the law of karma being inexorable and inescapabl­e.