refuting joker

Luckily for Honasan, the evidence against him is not strong thereby facilitating the decision by court to grant him his right to post bail; unfortunately for Trillanes, not only is he being charged of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, the evidences against him are strong as he was shown and talked before the television on behalf of the Magdalo group during the foiled Oakwood mutiny.

The constitution provides that all people charged for the commission of a crime shall have the right to post bail; provided that they are not charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or a minimum of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years of imprisonment; provided further that should a person be charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, the evidences against him are not strong, as determined thereto by the court through a proper bail proceeding upon.

Joker Arroyo hinted that the law has a double standard as Honasan was allowed to post bail to campaign for the elections while Trillanes, who is being charged with the same offense as that of Honasan, is still being kept locked up in jail. I think that his arguments are wrong, as a capital offense can never fully determine the validity of the granting of bail to a defendant. Evidences of guilt should first be proven to be strong against the latter before he may be denied of his right to bail, otherwise his liberty should not be restrained by mere weak allegation of an offense with a capital punishment.

That is what delineated Honasan from Trillanes, the court has found the evidences against Honasan to be weak while the evidences against Trillanes are strong. Honasan is being charged as principal by inducement, which I think the prosecution has no direct evidence that will prove its case aside from the leaflets of Honasan that where distributed during the mutiny. I think what the prosecution has are circumstantial evidences, which require a bigger burden of proof, as compared to that direct evidences, to be appreciated by the court against Honasan. The same is not true in the case of Trillanes, who is being charged as principal by direct participation, as there are direct evidences linking him to be a direct participant of the mutiny: he was seen a couple of times in the television with his cadres during the entire period of the mutiny and he even served as the Magdalo’s spokesman. These are more than enough for the court to rule that the evidences against him are strong, thereby giving the court a justification to deny Trillanes’ petition for bail.

Whether they are guilty or not remains to be seen. What is clear today is that strength of the evidences against Honasan is weak, and we may see an acquittal unless the prosecution has aces up in its sleeves to convict Honasan. What seems to be the problem in this country? The culture of impunity is just too deeply rooted.