Beyond reasonable doubt

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

Corruption investigations reported by media provide the raw material for a criminal case, but in court, prosecutors must pass the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. The reason why some high-profile investigations do not lead to conviction is due to the failure of the evidence presented at trial to meet this demanding legal requirement. Remember that the presumption of innocence — the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty — is the constitutional principle that underpins this evidentiary threshold.

When people hear that public officials have been “charged” or “indicted,” it is only natural to feel both relief and anger. To secure a conviction, however, the prosecution must prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Understanding what this prosecutorial prescription means, and why it matters now as the Office of the Ombudsman files corruption cases, protects both our desire for accountability and the accused’s right to a fair trial.

“Beyond reasonable doubt” does not mean absolute certainty for that would be impossible. But it does mean a very high degree of certainty. In jurisprudence this is often described as a level of proof that leaves the judge or jury with an abiding certitude of the accused’s guilt. In practice, this means the prosecution must present evidence that proves every element of the crime charged to such high level of moral certainty.

If the evidence leaves a reasonable question in the mind of a rational person about the accused’s guilt, the defendant must be acquitted. This is not legal hair-splitting: it is the safeguard that prevents innocent people from being punished through poor or weak proof. Note that criminal convictions carry the most serious penalties: loss of liberty, reputation, and sometimes property. For this reason, the law demands that the factual case against the accused be proven with exceptional clarity.

There is a balance to be struck between insisting on swift accountability and respecting the legal standard that protects fairness. In this regard, lawyers’ groups should endeavor to educate the public on trial procedures. Armed with this knowledge and appreciation for court litigation, citizens would be more empowered to demand thorough investigations and timely prosecutions. They can, with a high level of confidence, urge prosecutors and the courts to present and evaluate evidence rigorously.

As for the current corruption investigations, the Ombudsman and prosecutors must build cases that will survive the scrutiny of trial and appeal; the media should report responsibly, distinguishing allegations from proven guilt; and citizens must let the justice process run while remaining vigilant for transparency and reform. Trial by publicity seems inevitable in the social media age. But this must not prevent due process from prevailing in the prosecution of the pork barrel cartel.

Accordingly, the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan, and the Supreme Court should work on livestreaming the corruption trials. Giving the public a front row seat to the proceedings will be a boost in two ways. First, it can help enlighten the people on how effective (or not) the wheels of justice turn. Public outrage can result in quick action and visible accountability. But criminal law has its own rules, designed to be fair and reliable even when emotions run high. Filipinos must internalize this fact.

Second, the public exposure can be a potent deterrent. Government officials will likely think twice before stealing from the national coffers if this can mean a thorough public pillorying for themselves and their family. Besides, livestreaming official proceedings is no longer new given Congress has done this with the Bicameral Conference Committee sessions.

“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the legal firewall that separates conviction from speculation. In the current wave of corruption indictments, that standard is not an obstacle to justice — it is the mechanism that ensures justice is real and enduring. If we want convictions that last and reforms that stick, we should insist on both rigorous investigations and trials that meet that high standard.