Presumption of truth breeds police brutalities

Presumption of truth

breeds police brutalities

Why many police agents are oppressive, abusive, corrupt and dishonest?

This blog has been triggered by an article in Inquirer published on 7 December 2014, entitled “Impunity despite PH’s landmark Anti-Torture Act.”

This commentator blames the Rule of Presumption of Regularity under the Rules of Evidence to all the words of the policemen, agents and other law enforcement operatives.

This means that almost every word uttered by police operatives is presumed true before the court, the prosecutor’s offices, the Ombudsman, internal discipline offices, and other administrative adjudication agencies.

So that no matter how much fight would be put up by victims of human rights abuses committed by officers of the law, the victims always end up defeated in the contest of who tells the truth: The Rule of Presumption of Regularity always presumes that all policemen, agents and other law enforcement operatives are presumed to be telling the truth.

So that even if victims of human rights could still be lucky to be alive, their first problem is how to overcome the weight of evidence given outright to the words uttered by torturers because the Rules of Presumption of Regularity says the cops’ words are presumed true.

Because of this, all operatives are bold in committing rights violations, including planting of evidence for the purpose of extortion.  Violators are confident they cannot be caught lying.

Considering the magnitude of violations of human rights, there is a pressing need for the Rules of Evidence to be changed with respect to "the presumption of regularity given to every word of police and other law enforcers."

To understand this point, it is better to give an example.

It is common for the police, PDEA and NBI operatives to plant evidence of illegal drugs on persons. 

In normal ways, the citizens victimized have no other evidence in their favor except for their words of complaints. 

But the words of arrested persons, no matter how spontaneously given during the testimonies in court, are treated by the judges as "of no weight" against the words of operatives. 

This is because the Rules of Evidence says that operatives being officers of the law enjoy the presumption that every word they utter in court is presumed true.

In long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court, no amount of spontaneous, straightforward and coherent testimonies of the persons accused and the witnesses of the accused can defeat the testimonies of the operatives. 

An example below is common to happen in illegal drugs buy-bust operations.

During the trial in court, the innocent accused normally would say:

"Your honor, the truth of the matter is that these agents just barged inside our house without any search warrant or arrest warrant.   They pointed guns at me and they forcibly brought me to their headquarters.    There at the headquarters, the operatives put on the table plastic sachets of shabu and paraphernalia and they conducted inventory and photography of the evidence they alleged to have been taken from me.   This inventory and photography was conducted before the media representative, the DOJ representative, and a barangay kagawad as required under Section 21 of Republic Act 9165.   But all these are for a show."

Earlier, the operatives testified in court:

"Your honor, the truth of the matter is that we have a confidential informant whose name we cannot reveal.   This informant arranged with the accused that the former will buy drug stuff worth P1,000.00.   When we met the accused, the informant introduced the poseur-buyer agent to the accused.   Immediately after the exchange of money and illegal drug, the poseur-buyer agent scratched his head as a signal for other agents to rush to the scene and arrest the accused."

Under this scenario, the judge's mind is trained to obey the Rules of Evidence to give weight to the statements of the operatives and the words of the accused are given no credit at all.

With this, it is reasonable to say that more than a million Filipino citizens must have already been convicted by the courts because their words are treated outright as "zero" in terms of "credibility."

In this long line of cases of the Supreme Court, the only chances of the accused planted with evidence are:

(a) That the witnesses-agents would crack under intense cross-examinations that is rare to happen because those seated by the agents are experienced cops or agents;

(b) That the agents failed to comply with some technical requirements in the handling of evidence;

(c) That there are pieces of documentary or CCTV evidence to show the truth there was no such buy-bust that occurred or that the agents asked money from the accused in exchange for freedom; and

(d) That there is evidence showing bad faith on the part of the policemen or agents or other operatives.

            Experience shows that any of these possibilities is seldom to occur.

If the accused cannot have any of the above-stated possibilities, his case is dead.  He or she will get convicted.

With this rigid Rules of Evidence as to the presumption of regularity favoring the operatives, how will the truthful accused win the case?  No way.

            It is also logical now to state that this presumption of regularity has been the top reason that emboldened the operatives to entertain the possibility of big income through extortion, which, in the process made them abusive, corrupt and dishonest.

            What are the solutions?

Under ordinary rules of jury trial, the words of police operatives or agents are NOT given the presumption of truth. 

Their words are adjudged by the jurors based on HOW they testify during the trial, HOW they answer questions, HOW they act when testifying, HOW long they give answers to questions, and others indicative of whether an ordinary witness is telling the truth or not.

This problem of human rights violations in the form of planting of evidence will never be cured if the Philippines' leaders in justice system are adamant and arrogant in changing trial system by allowing jury trials.

Jury is a form of justice procedure where the people are made as the judges through a small group of people selected from them by random and through screening process to determine who among those chosen by at random are capable of being fair in adjudging on issues of facts.

Another solution may be for the Supreme Court to issue a circular amending "the presumption of regularity rule in the performance of official functions" and issue a new rule removing that presumption from operatives.

And when the presumption is removed, the operatives and the accused now stand on the same level of footing before trial begins.

So that the operatives must prove their cases based on how they deliver their testimonies in Court and the accused can also use his testimonies as sufficient to stand for in defense.

Whatever, the second proposal is still open for abuse because the cops or agents can always conspire with the prosecutors and judges.

What do you think, friend?