The Mother of All Legal Presumptions

Nothing is more fundamentally sound and deeply rooted in the entire legal system than the presumption of innocence. It is enshrined in various international legal doctrines and conventions worldwide, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In many jurisdictions, the presumption is considered a basic human right, and essential for upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law.

Legal scholars and luminaries consider the presumption of innocence as the mother of all legal presumptions on account that it laid the foundation for other related rights and legal principles, such as the right to remain silent, the right to confront witnesses, the right to independent and competent counsel, and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Without the presumption of innocence, the integrity of the legal system would fail, no grounds will be laid to cultivate justice, protection for human rights is non-existent, and order in society becomes a fantasy.

A world where no presumption of innocence will reduce public trust in the justice system to rubble. Worst of all, there will be no protection against wrongful convictions. Every person is burdened in proving their innocence against bare accusations without concrete evidence which can ultimately send innocent people to languish in prison and pay for a crime that they did not commit or, worse, did not even happen at all.

A powerful quote from a famous English jurist named William Blackstone stated that: “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” A profound reminder to all judges to ensure that the presumption of innocence is observed when crafting decisions in criminal cases for it is better to err in the side of caution and protect the rights of the accused, even if it means that some guilty individuals may evade punishment.

Although the presumption of innocence is seemingly indestructible, its armor contains a few kinks. First and foremost is the only standard requirement that can overrule the presumption of innocence – proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court defines proof beyond reasonable doubt as that proof that “demands moral certainty, which convinces and satisfies reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it” (Garma vs. People, G.R. No. 248317, March 16, 2022).

Obviously, proving such a high standard is much easier said than done for the task is far more daunting than the Supreme Court describes it. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof in the entire legal system. It requires the State, through its prosecutors, to demonstrate that there is no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Prosecutors must present this evidence convincingly and coherently, all while facing the defense who can employ various strategies to challenge the evidence and induce doubt in the mind of the judge. Add the fact that the criminal justice system is not immune to human error and bias which can impact the prosecution’s witness credibility.

Besides the rigorous reality of proving the commission of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, judicial principles, such as the pro reo and equipoise rule, reinforces the presumption of innocence, making the task of attaining final convictions even more challenging. All things considered, however, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not the most effective method to dismantle the presumption of innocence.

The other weakness of the presumption of innocence is that its application and effects do not extend beyond the confines of the courtroom. Public opinion, media sensationalism, and societal biases are the spurs that undermine the mother of all presumptions and destroy the reputation of the accused.

In the United States, racial profiling has been the norm in criminal prosecution against Black and Hispanic individuals who are often disproportionately targeted for certain crimes compared to their White counterparts, even when engaging in similar behaviors. Unfortunately for them, the presumption of innocence is more of a formality rather than a reality.

Sensationalized media coverage of criminal cases almost always shapes public perception and contributes to prejudgment against the accused. One example is the 1991 case of the “Vizconde Massacre” which involved the brutal killings of Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters, Carmela and Jennifer in their home in Parañaque City. The case gained widespread media attention and was overly sensationalized, portraying the accused, Herbert Webb and his co-defendants, as the guilty perpetrators even before they were formally arraigned. The media focused heavily on the gruesome details of the crime and highlighted the social status of the accused, who came from a prominent family. This sensationalism created a public perception of guilt that persisted and rendered the presumption of innocence illusory throughout the trial.

Despite the lack of conclusive evidence linking Webb to the crime, media coverage continued to paint him as a rapist and vicious murderer that eroded any semblance of innocence from his image. It was said that the intense media scrutiny and public pressure may have influenced the legal proceedings and led to the eventual conviction of Webb in 2000.

However, the Supreme Court, in a dramatic turn of events, acquitted Webb and his co-accused after almost two decades of imprisonment. The Court cited inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses and doubts about the integrity of the evidence presented during trial. The ponencia of the case even remarked it as a “reasonable and lingering doubt on the guilt of the accused” and “failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt”.

Further, the SC made a fine note on what constitutes doubt that earned the acquittal of Webb:

“In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth” (People vs. Webb, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010).

In the end, the presumption of innocence was upheld in the case of Webb, but what did it cost him? He still spent two decades of his life in prison for a crime that he never committed. The effects that public perception and police pressure to his case took a heavy toll on him, and his life will never be the same. A travesty for both Webb and the justice system.

The Vizconde Massacre is not only a case of wrongful conviction but is also a prime example of why public opinion is the strongest adversary of the presumption of innocence. When sensationalized media coverage and societal biases shape public perceptions, it can become exceedingly difficult for the accused to receive a fair trial because the concept of neutrality is no longer present within the atmosphere of the case. Therefore, there is no avenue for the presumption of innocence to prevail. As what happened to Webb, the intense scrutiny and public condemnation overran the course of the trial and possibly led to pre-judgment and rushed, half-baked decisions which bypassed the essential principle of all civil rights – “innocent until proven guilty”.

The issue of media sensationalism continues to impact the presumption of innocence over the years. The only way this can be addressed is through media literacy education, diversity training for journalist, and efforts to combat systematic biases within the criminal justice system. However, with social markets overloaded with other information, getting this across most of the public is an uphill battle, to say the least.

Nevertheless, while societal challenges are significant, they must not overshadow the importance of preserving the presumption of innocence. As the mother of all legal presumptions, it must be safeguarded at all costs considering that the success of our criminal justice system is hinged on her nourishment and survival.