Sen. Panfilo Lacson has repeatedly stated that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, which he chairs, will follow the evidence wherever it leads.
This statement implies that the Committee's findings and recommendations will be based on the evidence it gathers; so, no evidence, no finding on the matter that requires evidence. It also poses a challenge to the government: there should be no filing of cases if the evidence is not properly presented and cannot be accepted as proof.
But what is evidence? It is the proof necessary to establish the truth or falsity of a fact in issue. Relatedly, the evidence will establish the accused's guilt or innocence.
It is important to note that evidence deals with facts, not arguments or conclusions.
Evidence is not equivalent to proof. It is the means or instrument used to establish the truth of a fact. Proof is the effect or result of evidence. More importantly, it is the belief produced in the judge's mind.
Consider this: Evidence is the means of proving a fact; proof is the result of the effect of evidence.
Applying these legal definitions and concepts to the DPWH flood-control corruption cases yields several observations.
Evidence refers to documents, testimonies, and records presented to show how public funds were controlled, released, and misused. This is where the DPWH documents, including the so-called Cabral Files, come in.In court, it would be necessary to show why these files prove corruption. Mere presentation will not be proof of corruption.
Whistle-blower testimony is part of testimonial evidence. Again, the prosecutors must convince the court of the truthfulness of the testimony and its connection to the elements of the case, such as plunder and malversation.
There is also circumstantial evidence, such as the repeated use of the same contractors, winning bids, and the release of funds even when projects have not been implemented.
Evidence is transformed into proof of plunder or malversation if the accused influenced the release of the funds and there was a conspiracy in the releases.
The accused will raise many defenses, as implied above. They will argue that the evidence is weak or that there was no proof at all. They will certainly put up the defense that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Since there are many avenues within which to pursue the defense, we can expect that submission of the criminal complaints will take several months, from gathering evidence to sewing them together in an air-tight case, to the conduct of the hearings, and the many ways of presenting motions, which will delay the conduct of the hearings.
The Ombudsman will be up against a wall of highly paid defense lawyers who are not hesitant to bring the cases all the way to the Supreme Court.
The public hails if there is an arrest. But given the amount of proof needed, this is really a tough task for the Ombudsman, and certainly for the President, who has to prove to the Filipino people that this administration can put the corrupt in jail. Remember the missed “before Christmas” deadline?
In short, evidence and then proof count. Are there enough to convict the accused?
It is a challenge for those in government to use their powers and talents, since the amounts involved are taxpayers’ money, running into trillions of pesos. Faith in government is under evaluation. But then again, is there proof beyond reasonable doubt?
#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonNews #IAmBack