Demystifying the Pro-Reo Doctrine: Understanding Its Role in Legal Defense and Fair Trials

Explore the concept of the Pro-Reo Doctrine in law, how it ensures fair trials and balances the scales of justice, and its significance in the legal system.

The legal system can be a complex and challenging landscape to navigate, especially for those facing criminal charges. One key principle that plays a crucial role in ensuring fair trials and maintaining the balance of justice is the Pro-Reo Doctrine. In this article, we'll delve into the concept of the Pro-Reo Doctrine, its function in legal defense, and its significance in the pursuit of justice.

Defining the Pro-Reo Doctrine

The Pro-Reo Doctrine, also known as the "Favorable to the Accused" principle, is a legal doctrine that emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings. It is based on the fundamental presumption of innocence, which means that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. The Pro-Reo Doctrine ensures that courts interpret criminal laws and procedures in a manner most favorable to the defendant, safeguarding their rights and promoting fair trials.

The Role of the Pro-Reo Doctrine in Legal Defense

The Pro-Reo Doctrine plays a crucial role in the legal defense of individuals accused of crimes. Its primary functions include:

1. Presumption of innocence: By adhering to the Pro-Reo Doctrine, courts ensure that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The accused does not have to prove their innocence; instead, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Interpretation of ambiguities: If there are ambiguities in the law or the evidence presented during a trial, the Pro-Reo Doctrine dictates that these uncertainties be resolved in favor of the accused. This approach protects defendants from potential miscarriages of justice due to unclear or conflicting information.

3. Protection of rights: The Pro-Reo Doctrine safeguards the accused's legal rights, such as the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to counsel, and the right to remain silent. By ensuring these rights are upheld, the doctrine promotes a more just legal system.

Significance of the Pro-Reo Doctrine in the Legal System

The Pro-Reo Doctrine holds a vital position in the legal system for several reasons:

1. Ensuring fair trials: By protecting the rights of the accused and maintaining the presumption of innocence, the Pro-Reo Doctrine contributes to a fair and impartial trial process, which is a cornerstone of any democratic society.

2. Balancing the scales of justice: The Pro-Reo Doctrine helps to balance the power dynamics between the prosecution and the defense, preventing the abuse of authority and ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to defend themselves effectively.

3. Upholding the rule of law: The Pro-Reo Doctrine reinforces the importance of due process and the rule of law, emphasizing that every person, regardless of the charges against them, is entitled to a fair and just legal process.

In conclusion, the Pro-Reo Doctrine is a fundamental principle in the legal system that serves to protect the rights of the accused, ensure fair trials, and maintain the balance of justice. By adhering to this doctrine, courts safeguard the integrity of the legal process and uphold the values of a democratic society.

Plunder is malum in se

There may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended. That plunder is a heinous offense implies that is it malum in se, inherently immoral or inherently wrong.

In Dungo vs. People (G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015) the Supreme Court said that the better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act.

"If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission (for) reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute."

 Therefore, the elements of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. In the case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001), the Supreme Court agreed with Justice Mendoza in his concurring opinion which stated as follows:

"Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner."

Mens rea

In criminal law, mens rea means the gravamen of the offense. It is derived from the latin maxim Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, which means that "evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for a crime to exist." There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting.

In Ombudsman vs. Torres (G.R. No. 168309, January 29, 2008), the Supreme Court reiterated the rule laid down in Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan which also qualified that neglect betrays criminal intent, to wit:

 "As a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious responsibility. The exception of course is neglect in the discharge of duty or indifference to consequences, which is equivalent to criminal intent, for in this instance, the element of malicious intent is supplied by the element of negligence and imprudence."

The doctrine applies to crimes mala in se, mens rea being defined as a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent, and essential for criminal libility. A criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement infringes on constitutionally protected rights. The criminal statute must also provide for the overt acts that constitute the crime. For a crime to exist in our legal law, it is not enough that mens rea be shown; there must also be an actus reus which is defined as an action or conduct that is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused.

Stealing a credit card and using the same

If a person steals a credit card and uses the same to obtain services, he is liable of the following:

1.) Theft of the credit card (Art. 308, Revised Penal Code);
2.) Violation of R.A. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998); and
3.) Estafa (Art. 315, Revised Penal Code).

In Francisco vs. People (G.R. No. 177720, February 18, 2009), the Supreme Court held that the third element of estafa under Article 315(a) merely requires that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. "It does not require that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means be intentionally directed to the offended party."

"Thus, in this case wherein a person pretended to possess credit in order to defraud third persons (Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa), but the offended party nevertheless relied on such fraudulent means and consequently suffered damage by virtue thereof, such person is liable for estafa under Article 315(a), even though the fraudulent means was not intentionally directed to the offended party. A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him."

Bullet-Planting at NAIA: The Law on Possession of Ammunition

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net

President Aquino has ordered an investigation into the “tanim bala” racket that extorts money from passengers at the country's premier international gateway, the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).

Social media has exploded with reports and comments on planting of bullets allegedly by unscrupulous airport staff into the bags of unsuspecting passengers in order to extort money from them.

In reaction to these recent spate of bullet planting complaints, Senator Raplh Recto has asked for a review of the law on illegal possession of ammunition and wants the change the penalty for for illegal possession of ammunition – prision mayor, from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. He described the current penalty as too harsh for a single bullet.

http://www.freeimages.com

Under Republic Act 10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, it is illegal to possess even a single ammunition without a license. An ammunition is refered to as a complete unfixed unit consisting of a bullet, gunpowder, cartridge case and primer or loaded shell for use in any firearm. The minimum qualification to acquire a license to own and possess a firearm and/or ammunition is Filipino citizenship, at least 21 years old and gainful work, occupation or business.

The penalty of prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-B light weapon.

As shown in the numerous reported cases of "tanim bala" extortion incidents at the airport, this law on possession of ammunition has been abused by corrupt airport staff and their principals. Granting there is no bullet planting and indeed a passenger is caught in possession of a single bullet or two, the most commonsensical solution is to confiscate the prohibited item and let the passenger go.

However the law on firearm and ammunition has given an excuse for unscrupulous airport staff to arrest "erring" passengers and demand money from them in exchange for letting them off the hook. Thanks to social media this alleged extortion has been exposed!

While an investigation into this alleged scheme by airport personnel is a positive step, the long-term solution is to revise the law and decriminalize possession of ammunition in negligible quantity. A single bullet or two should not make a person a criminal. In California, possession of live ammunition is legal but with specific exceptions, among them by insane persons, by those under age 18, by convicts and by those under probation.

I say we should revise our gun and ammunition laws and adopt the same regulations as that of California's. That way, we can permanently avoid this embarrassing and appalling "tanim bala" extortion scheme in our primary airport.