To err is human so they say. But to err twice for the same offense - what is that called? Inhuman? Sounds about right if one looks at the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7309 (“An Act Creating A Board Of Claims Under The Department Of Justice For Victims Of Unjust Imprisonment Or Detention And Victims Of Violent Crimes And For Other Purposes”, March 30, 1992).
R.A. 7309 apparently seeks to redress injustices committed by government. But a 2nd injustice seems the inevitable result.
Claims For Compensation
RA 7309 starts off a little promising. Under its Section 3, the following are allowed to file claims for compensation before the Board of Claims:
a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently released following an acquittal. The use of the word ‘unjustly’ is crucial. Not every person who is acquitted can file a claim with the Board.
In Felicito Basbacio vs. Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice (G.R. No. 109445 November 7, 1994), petitioner was convicted, with his son-in-law, of frustrated murder. Petitioner had a land dispute with the victim and was at the scene of the crime when his son-in-law started shooting the victim. On this basis, the prosecution found probable guilt to charge petitioner with conspiracy to commit the murder. However, on appeal, petitioner was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy. Petitioner then filed a claim before the Board of Claims.
In denying petitioner’s claim, the Supreme Court held that “sec. 3(a) does not refer solely to an unjust conviction as a result of which the accused is unjustly imprisoned, … The accused must have been “unjustly accused, in consequence of which he is unjustly convicted and then imprisoned … if the prosecution is not malicious any conviction even though based on less than the required quantum of proof in criminal cases may be erroneous but not necessarily unjust.
The reason is that under Rule 112, sec. 4 [Rules of Court], the question for the prosecutor in filing a case in court is not whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt but only whether “there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.” Hence, an accusation which is based on “probable guilt” is not an unjust accusation and a conviction based on such degree of proof is not necessarily an unjust judgment but only an erroneous one … ”
b) any person who was unjustly detained and released without being charged;
c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) under a final judgment of the court; and
d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes. (Under the Act, violent crimes include rape and offenses committed with malice which resulted in death or serious physical and/or psychological injuries, permanent incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious trauma, or committed with torture, cruelly or barbarity). Unfortunately, we are not aware of any case regarding this particular situation so we cannot expound on this topic.
A careful reading of the above reveals that the following equally unjust scenarios are not covered:
a) a person unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but released only after serving sentence;
b) a person unjustly charged but somehow released before trial;
c) a victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the RPC. Since arbitrary detention is easily determined by just counting the number of days of detention, it shouldn’t be necessary to have a court trial to determine whether or not it was committed. An administrative investigation should be enough.
Compensation
Now we go to the 2nd error we mentioned. The 1st error, of course, is the injustice committed as enumerated in the 4 instances earlier. The 2nd error, as you may have guessed, is the money to be paid as compensation for the injustice.
Under Section 4 of the Act, a maximum paltry amount of P1,000.00 for every month of imprisonment or detention (every fraction thereof being considered 1 month) shall be given to victims of unjust imprisonment or detention. That’s P1,000.00 for every month you are detained without just cause, separated from your friends, family, away from the comforts of home, in the company of real criminals, and without means of livelihood. P1,000.00 is not even close to a month’s minimum wage.
In all other cases, the maximum total amount of P10,000.00, or the amount necessary to reimburse the claimant the expenses incurred for hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other expenses directly related to injury, shall be paid, whichever is lower.
Fortunately, the lawmakers had the good sense to include that the compensation “is without prejudice to the right of the claimant to seek other remedies under existing laws.” A civil liability suit for damages can always be filed in court against the perpetrators (pursuant to the New Civil Code). But it certainly would have been very helpful if the Board of Claims could also entertain claims for remedies like these against the government.
Filing of Claims
Section 5 of the Act provides that claims must be filed within 6 months after being released from imprisonment or detention, or from the date the victim suffered damage or injury, otherwise, the claim is deemed waived. So instead of getting re-acquainted with family and friends, getting your life back in order, maybe even getting medical attention for whatever our Philippine National Police is notorious for, you’re expected to prepare and file your claim as soon as possible lest the 6 months lapse. Very considerate.
In case of death or incapacity of any person entitled to any award, the claim may be filed by his heirs, in the following order: by his surviving spouse, children, natural parents, brother and/or sister. (Section 6)
The Board is mandated to resolve claims within 30 working days after filing of the application as well as to adopt an expeditious and inexpensive procedure for claimants. (Section 7)
Appeals are brought before the Secretary of Justice within 15 days from receipt of the resolution of the Board. (Section 8 ) Although the same provision states that the Secretary’s decision is final and executory, there is always the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in case the Secretary is alleged to have acted with grave abuse of discretion. (Felicito Basbacio vs. Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice, ibid.)
It could be telling on the actual benefit of this law that we only found 1 case involving it. Lawyers’ fees alone matched up against the possible compensatory award could be enough to dampen victims’ hopes of being really compensated for the injustice done to them. And so the injustice hits the victims one more time.
No comments:
Post a Comment