“Ferreting out the truth must be the objective of all stakeholders in any judicial action.”
In this day and age when fake news abounds, fact checking is necessary. The latter is a process that seeks to verify factual information to promote the veracity and correctness of the reporting (Wikipedia). It is obvious why people would want to know the truth or the reality of any fact or sets of facts.
What, then, is the meaning of truth? These are the real facts about something, or its actuality (Merriam Webster Dictionary). The Latin word for truth is veritas, as in verity and veritable. The necessity of knowing the truth is not only essential for purposes of reporting information, but is as important in determining the truth behind the facts in courts or administrative agencies.
Most of the time, the mention of truth elicits a discussion of justice. Justice has been used in different ways. It may be described as what we owe to each other, or the equitable distribution of resources. Justice may also pertain to the impartial application of laws within the context of the Rule of Law (Justice, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
The need to know the truth is incorporated in the definition of evidence in the Rules on Evidence. Evidence is defined as the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth, respecting a matter of fact (Section 1, Rule 128, 2019 Rules on Evidence).
Hence, to know the truth, our courts will have to rely on the means to prove it, which is evidence. These include the testimonies of witnesses, and object and documentary evidence. Since the judge did not personally perceive the facts and evidence presented or relayed to him or her, there must be some way to validate all the evidence. This process is known as the authentication of evidence.
Due to the importance of evidence for the judge to arrive at a judgment, some parties or interested persons may kill, threaten, or oppress witnesses. This led Congress to pass Republic Act No. 6981, otherwise known as the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, to protect witnesses from physical and economic retaliation. On the other hand, some parties or witnesses can give false testimonies or perjure statements to suppress the truth.
Documentary or object evidence are sometimes destroyed or hidden by erring parties or lawyers to distort the truth. In one case, the counsel of record borrowed the medical records of a deceased person from the court and tore two of its pages. The Supreme Court disbarred the lawyer by saying that by descending to the level of a common thief, he has disgraced the profession (Fernandez, et al. v. Grecia, A.M. 3694, June 17, 1993).
How can the court ascertain the truth?
Testimonial evidence. It can hear the testimonies of witnesses to determine if they have personal knowledge of or perceived the facts they testify on (Section 22, Rule 130, 2019 Rules on Evidence). These witnesses can be impeached or cross-examined on prior inconsistent statements, contrary evidence, on their general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity, perceived bias or prejudice, or undue interest in the subject matter of the litigation.
The witnesses can also be excluded or disqualified even if they know the truth, if the subject matter of the supposed testimony is covered by privilege communications between spouses, attorneys and clients, doctors/psychotherapists and patients, penitents and priests/ministers, public officers and the state, ascendants and descendants (filial), and trade secrets (Sections 24, 25 and 26, 2019 Rules on Evidence). There is no suppression of the truth because the Rules understand the sensitivity of the relationships and the confidential nature of the information received.
Documentary evidence. If the documents consist of writings, recordings, photographs, words, sounds, numbers or figures, and the contents of which are the subject of the inquiry, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself (Section 3, Rule 130, 2019 Rules on Evidence). Hence, copies, recitals of some authentic documents, or testimonies of witnesses, will not be accepted by the court unless it is proven that the original has been lost or destroyed, in the custody of the adverse party or that the documents cannot be obtained by local judicial processes (Sections 5 and 6, Rule 130, 2019 Rules on Evidence).
Object evidence. These are evidence addressed to the senses of the court (Section 1, Rule 130, 2019 Rules on Evidence). The most common object evidence in criminal cases are firearms, bladed weapons, illegal drugs or substances, or fruits of the crime. On the other hand, object evidence in civil cases, involves various personal properties, or real properties subject to ocular inspection of the court. Like all other evidence, objects will have to be authenticated before admitted or considered by the court.
Ascertaining the truth is not purely procedural, and it is expected that the judge will have the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate. However, it is possible that the judge, being a natural person, may commit an error, appreciate evidence wrongly, neglect his duty, or gravely abuse his or her discretion. Not to mention that some judges may have deep seated biases or prejudices for or against persons, groups of persons, juridical entities, political or religious groups and ideologies, or advocacies that one way or the other may have had an impact in his or her life.
There are legal remedies for errors, irregularities, neglect of duty, or grave abuses of discretion that may be committed by judges. However, there are no remedies for biases and prejudices unless manifested in the actions, statements, or rulings by the judge in court. In the latter case, you can inhibit the judge. This is the reason why there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of the judge’s sworn duty. It is also hoped and prayed for that the judge be given wisdom and understanding in rendering his judgments.
Parties, lawyers, and other court users are also expected to promote truth and justice. This is somehow a challenge to lawyers whose only objective is to win a case regardless of the truthfulness of their allegations and the evidence presented. They may try to influence judges and court personnel, directly or indirectly. For instance, some parties and court users may rekindle old personal or professional ties just to facilitate their cases.
The more proactive lawyers and court users will try to develop deep and lasting bonds of friendship with judges and court personnel. Unsuspecting judges and court personnel may be victims of overly patronizing parties who give tokens and gifts during their birthdays and important holidays. The more daring ones will try to corrupt judges and court personnel. However, if they are caught they will certainly be held administratively and criminally liable.
Ferreting out the truth must be the objective of all stakeholders in any judicial action. Furthermore, public perception begets trust and faith in judicial institutions if the latter continually and reliably serve justice. Confidence in the justice system alleviates doubt and fear better than any legal remedy or procedure a lawyer can offer. The truth, and not legal prowess, will set the litigant free.
