In
medieval times, no civil or criminal plea should be decided against a
freeman until he had been given the opportunity to furnish the customary
"proof" which the law, as it then stood, recognized and permitted him
to offer. This proof might be by battle, or ordeal, or by compurgation.
Whatever form it might assume it was technically known as the law (lex),
that is, as a test according to which the defendant's claim was to be
upheld or denied. Thus, a man might prove his innocence by beating his
opponent in battle.
Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession, in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. In essence, it is a judicially sanctioned duel. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages, gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century.
*****
Trial by ordeal is a judicial practice by which the guilt or
innocence of the accused is determined by subjecting them to an
unpleasant, usually dangerous experience. In some cases, the accused was
considered innocent if they survived the test, or if their injuries
healed; in others, only death was considered proof of innocence. (If the
accused died, they were often presumed to have gone to a suitable
reward or punishment in the afterlife, which was considered to make
trial by ordeal entirely fair.) In medieval Europe, the trial by combat,
trial by ordeal was considered a judicium Dei: a procedure based
on the premise that God would help the innocent by performing a miracle
on their behalf. Trial by ordeal was surprisingly effective at sorting
the guilty from the innocent. Because defendants were believers, only
the truly innocent would choose to endure a trial; guilty defendants
would confess or settle cases instead. Therefore, the theory goes,
church and judicial authorities would routinely rig ordeals so that the
participants-presumably innocent-could pass them. If this theory is
correct, medieval superstition was actually a useful motivating force
for justice.
*****
Trial by compurgation is a method of trial in which an accused person
could summon a specified number of people, usually 12, to swear to
their belief in his or her innocence. The obvious fault of this system
was that the beliefs of the people summoned by the accused may not be
based on any evidence at all.
*****
Fortunately, from such bizarre practices evolved modern concepts of
justice. Now, the guilt or innocence of an accused is determined only
after hearing the evidence against him before a court which is presided
by an impartial judge or jury. Courts are mandated to base their
conclusions only upon properly adduced evidence, limiting it to what is
immediately relevant to the issue in dispute, and allowing evidence to
be given only by those qualified to give it -- that is, with some
exceptions, to those who can say they have seen something, heard
something, tasted something, felt something, smelt something, which will
assist the court in coming to a decision.
*****
Also, in most of the civilized world, the accused has in his favor
the presumption of innocence. In the Philippines, the Constitution
provides in Section 14[1], of Article III (the Bill of Rights) that in
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved.
*****
Because of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused,
suspicion no matter how strong, cannot be a basis for conviction. The
prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the
weakness of the defense. The accused need not prove his innocence
because that is presumed. Consequently, if the evidence adduced by the
prosecution does not establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused need not adduce any evidence in his favor
to secure a judgment of acquittal. The presumption of innocence
continues until sufficient evidence is introduced to overcome his
presumed innocence, and his guilt is established.
*****
In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies
on the prosecution. As the accused has in his favor the constitutional
presumption of innocence, the quantum of proof that will warrant a
verdict of guilt must be strong enough to erase any reasonable doubt as
to his culpability. Every circumstance against guilt and in favor of
innocence must be considered. Conviction can be had only by proof beyond
reasonable doubt which requires moral certainty, "a certainty that
convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to
act upon it' may the presumption of innocence be overcome."
*****
But why is it that there seems to be so many safeguards in favor of
an accused? The reason lies in the fact that a crime is considered to be
an offense not only against the offended party, but against the whole
state. Thus, whenever a crime is prosecuted, the title or caption of the
case reads: "The People of the Philippines versus (name of accused)".
As seen, the accused is confronted with the full might of state
authority - he is alone against the 90 million people of the
Philippines. To lighten the heavy odds against him, he is accorded the
presumption of innocence. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution must be
strong per se (by itself) to pierce that shield of presumptive
innocence and establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt; otherwise, he should be acquitted.
0 comments:
Post a Comment