Vizconde lesson (2)

ONE great lesson that was learned or underscored in that first Vizconde trial fiasco is the need for a competent, through and skillful CRIME INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE by government investigators.

And obviously with more, if urgent, reason these days when crime elements are more emboldened, mostly syndicated, and when crime-commission has become sophisticated, what with the perpetrators’ access to high-tech, modern-day means of communication and state-of-the-art weaponry.

If government has to spend a fortune for training/re-training its men, as well as acquiring gadgets or facilities,  to cope with the inevitable chore of high-tech crime investigation in this cyber age, then spend it must, as it were to satisfactorily fulfill its inherent mandate to ensure state and population security.

The mistaken notion is that once the prosecution files the criminal complaint against  an accused in court, evidence in support thereof is sufficient to ensure his conviction.

This is certainly a misperception. The evidence required for purposes of filing the criminal information in  court is ONLY prima facie evidence – or one that merely engenders belief that the accused may have, indeed, committed the felony or crime charged.

For purposes of CONVICTION, however, evidence BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is required to be established against the accused.

Herein generally lies the TRUE VALUE of correct/ideal evidence-gathering acumen and skillful prosecuting.

We assume, of course, that at the end of the trial journey sits an honest, fair, knowledgeable and incorruptible judge or magistrate to dispense TRUE JUSTICE based on evidence elicited – or want of it.

Trouble is finding His Honor, or the likes of him,  has also been a perennial problem in this politics-crazy nation.


About Gwenn

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply