Prosecutor’s finest hour in de Lima case

THIS development in de Lima’s case brings to mind a 1974 case, where the Supreme Court reminded those in charge of the prosecution of criminal cases, that the “finest hour” of a prosecutor is not when he wins a case with the conviction of the accused but when he stands up and pleads for the acquittal of the accused when there is no evidence to prove the commission of the offense.

AGLIMMER of hope appeared in favor of Senator Leila de Lima’s long struggle and quest for justice with Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra’s word that he will examine the remaining evidence against her in view of the recantation of witnesses who had linked her to illegal drugs. He said that “the prosecution needs to reassess the strength of its overall evidence in the light of the recantation of certain witnesses.”

For sure, Guevarra is merely following that elementary rule in criminal cases that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not depend its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. For it is the prosecution’s burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, not for the accused to prove his innocence.

Even incoming Justice Secretary Crispin Remulla gave the assurance of his willingness to review de Lima’s cases once he assumes office.

This development in De Lima’s case brings to mind a 1974 case, where the Supreme Court reminded those in charge of the prosecution of criminal cases, that the “finest hour” of a prosecutor is not when he wins a case with the conviction of the accused but when he stands up and pleads for the acquittal of the accused when there is no evidence to prove the commission of the offense.

In that case, the Supreme Court commended the group of then Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, when the Solicitor General, acting as the prosecutor in a criminal case, moved for the acquittal of the accused for “his noble task is to prosecute only the guilty and to protect the innocent.”

The Court said that: “This is good a time as any to emphasize upon those in charge of the prosecution of criminal cases that the prosecutor’s finest hour is not when he wins a case with the conviction of the accused. His finest hour is still when, overcoming the advocate’s natural obsession for victory, he stands up before the Court and pleads not for the conviction of the accused but for his acquittal. For indeed, his noble task is to prosecute only the guilty and to protect the innocent. We, therefore, commend Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz and Solicitor Sinfronio I. Ancheta for having correctly recommended the acquittal of the appellants Marianito Andres and Generoso Andres.”

Will Guevarra and/or Remulla have their own finest hour for the rule of law in de Lima’s case?