May a person’s character save him in court?

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

 

Character. Reputation. Why are they so important to a person that he/ she would go so far to defend them to the death?

In Napoleon Hill’s book entitled “The Law of Success”, he made a sharp distinction between the two, thus:  “Reputation is that which people are believed to be; character is that which people are”.

But in a court of law, “character” and “reputation” are used as synonyms or even interchangeable terms, thus:

“Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation. Good moral character includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that measures up as good among people of the community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.(People of the Philippines v. Noel Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002, underlining and italics supplied).

If a person is being prosecuted for a crime which nature goes against the person’s very character or reputation, may the court toss out the case for being uncharacteristic of the accused to have perpetrated the crime?

It depends.

Character evidence may be a double-edged sword. Wigmore had explained its quintessence as follows:

Foundational Considerations for CHARACTER EVIDENCE. “Wigmore, x x x supported the policy that ‘the prosecution may not initially attack the defendant’s character’ a practice designed to protect against ‘the deep tendency of human nature to punish, not because our victim is guilty this time, but because he is a bad man and may as well be condemned now that he is caught. In Wigmore’s view, evidence law had to deprive the prosecutor of the opportunity to exploit the punitive instincts of jurors’. (p. 78, JOHN HENRY WIGMORE and the Rules of Evidence, by Andrew Porwancher).

Echoing Wigmore’s view is our own Supreme Court which held that:

“The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause. There are exceptions to this rule however and Section 51, Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both criminal and civil cases. (People of the Philippines v. Noel Lee, Ibid.)

The consistent rule in Evidence law therefore is that initially, or at the beginning of the case, the prosecution cannot besiege the accused with evidence of his/ her bad moral character. For instance, if a commonly-known troublemaker in the community is arrested and charged with the recent killing of a victim, the prosecution’s evidence cannot rest solely on the fact that the accused is a public menace and thus he could have done the crime and no other. This conclusion is not only a non-sequitur (or “it does not follow”), but it could also set a dangerous precedent.  Instead, Evidence law requires that there must be more direct proof that it was the accused who was responsible for the unjustified killing and he could not be prosecuted on the basis alone of his/ her bad reputation or character.

But the rule is different when it is the accused himself who puts-up as defense, his/ her good moral character which belies his/ her commission of the crime because it is not in harmony with his/ her nature. Example, a person who has been very kind-hearted and soft-spoken all his/her life especially in the treatment of poor people, is accused of burning their houses, or worse, slaughtering them. Under this factual backdrop, courts may marshal their instinct and common sense and free the accused simply because such an accusation runs against every fiber of the accused’s character.

   A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC or the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, states the pertinent rules on character evidence in this manner:

                “Sec. 54, Rule 130.  Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. – Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: 

(a) In Criminal Cases: 

(1) The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. 

(2) The accused may prove his or her good moral character, pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. However, the prosecution may not prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal.” 

                Expounding on this, it was also explained that “In a nutshell, the character of a person has no bearing in a case because even a person with a very bad reputation, may have a good cause. Thus, the prosecution cannot, at first instance, prove the bad moral character of the accused. However, insofar as the accused is concerned, given that he is charged with a crime, the concept of probabilistic evidence comes into play, when, at his option he will present evidence proving that he could not have committed the crime because his good character belies it. If the accused does this, he “opens the door” for the prosecution, in rebuttal, to prove his bad moral character.” (p. 316, The Law of Evidence & Trial Techniques by Eduardo T. Reyes III, 2019 Edition).

One’s character or reputation therefore should never be undervalued. In life, a person’s character or reputation is a virtual scaffolding that affords him/ her the climb that is needed to get where he or she needs to be, and view what needs to be seen. It is also about integrity or of doing what needs to be done even if the community is sleeping.

And what will be your recompense?

In the words of Napoleon Hill, “You are a human magnet and you are constantly attracting to you people whose characters harmonize with your own”. (p. 133, The Law of Success by Napoleon Hill).

 

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).