Justice, according to Alberto AGRA (Now known as Agra's Alibi)

OUTGOING JUSTICE SECRETARY ALBERTO AGRA (thank God he's on his ignominious way out) blames Atty. Harry Roque for the death of Swaib Upham, the man whom many called "Jesse". Agra said Roque did not formally "turn-over" Upham to the DOJ, hence, he was not placed under the Government Witness Protection Program (WPP), that's why he was killed. Agra also said (and he said this before Ted Failon and Pinky Webb over at DZMM) that Upham is NOT a state witness because he, himself is an accused and they are "choosy" over whom to get as state witnesses against the Ampatuan massacre case. Agra said Upham might "disrupt" the government case and what kind of "disruption" is Agra referring to? Agra surmised that Upham might be a "planted one".

So, that, my friends, is the logic of Agra. Or, to many, Agra's alibi.

Agra is mimicking Pontius Pilate, washing his hands over the bloody murder of Jesse. He felt compelled to go on a national media tour to tell the whole world that he has nothing to do with the brutal assasination. Jesse is not under our custody, hence, we don't owe anybody an apology. Plain and simple logic.

Probably when Agra was taking his freshman law courses over at the Ateneo, he forgot to take his Legal ethics course. Or, he simply skipped that over knowing that the First Gentleman's classmate is the one lecturing the course.

Or, he probably failed to read the mandate of his department and the very words used to describe the department which he heads---JUSTICE.

For Agra, it is not the responsibility of the Justice department to investigate, let alone, asked for othe material witnesses in this controversial case against the Ampatuans. For Agra, it is unusual for his department to pursue other leads that may improve their chances of prosecution. The police investigation report is probably enough for Agra to prosecute his friends. Or, those spread of photos showing scenes too gruesome even for late night entertainment.

It is AGRA's opinion that the ones they have are enough to take the Ampatuans to the guillotine, even that of History. And another Jesse will just "spoil the broth", so to speak.

When I was at the Ateneo studying law, my ethics and even my criminal law professors always emphasize the duty of a lawyer to know the truth. And that the truth has many facets. Lawyers are like private investigators or puzzle solvers--they need to have even the slightest curiosity of what really happened. They should not be satisfied with just a cursory knowledge of a case--they should at least have the overall picture to determine a judicious rendering of a particular case.

Three months after Jesse went on air, exposing what he knew about the massacre and the Department of "Justice" did not even give him the courtesy of a call. Nor, did they ever tell the would-be state witness that government has adequate resources to protect him from the Ampatuan's swift arm of injustice.

Fact is---the Ampatuans and their sympathizers are even faster than government. It took them just three months before they finally catch up with Jesse and took his life. With his death comes the dissolution of an aspect of the truth. We may never know what really happened in that November 23 massacre.

And even if Jesse was one of those who killed those hapless victims, and probably disqualified him from being a state witness, his life is still material to the state, even for research purposes. Is the state not interested in pricking the mind of a hired killer? Even for that alone, the DOJ should have placed him under the government's custody.

The death of Jesse will be in Agra's memory for years to come. Whatever Agra thinks, this assassination is on his conscience. No amount of crocodile tears shed in public will erase his blood on Agra's hands. Agra will have to live knowing that he was party to a gruesome crime when he failed to protect Jesse. So much for an alibi.

I challenge Agra to wear black today

I challenge Justice secretary Alberto Agra to wear black today, even just to prove that he has no dandruff. If he wears his favorite color, which is orange, then, so be it. At least that's the color of the shirt he will be wearing once the term of this administration ends by June.

Agra should be ashamed for what he did, and to think that he was once a law professor of the Ateneo.

How could alibi be used to fully extinguish culpability for a crime? Alibi is a very weak defense tactic. In People vs. Mosquerra (G.R. No. 129209, August 9, 2001), the Supreme Court ruled that:

Accused defense of [sic] alibi is not worthy of belief. It has been repeatedly ruled that alibi is a weak defense as it is easy to concoct and fabricate. It become weaker in the face of the positive identification of the accused by an eye witnesses [sic] with no improper motive to falsely testify. More, it is not sufficient for the accused to alleged [sic] that he was away from the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. He must also present a clear and convincing proof that it is physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis while the crime is in progress. That physical impossibility is not present in this case. The records show that Jimmy Mosquerra's residence is about one and a half (1½) kilometers away from the crime scene. . . . Its distance could be negotiated in just a few minutes only, especially, when one uses a motor vehicle which is of common use for travel today.

Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated.For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.

Agra, as both Solicitor General and DOJ secretary at the same time, should probably know this--that alibi is not an affirmative defense.

What is most surprising is this---former Justice secretary Raul Gonzales was even the one who provided ARMM governor Zaldy Ampatuan his alibi by saying that the accused was inside Malacanang palace while the crime was being committed in Datu Shariff Aguak town in Maguindanao.

In a conspiracy, the conspirators can actually be in some other place while a crime is being committed. For example, in this case, there is a higher probability that the masterminds of the crime were simply not there when the crime was committed. Conspiracy, in Philippine jurisprudence, is defined as an act committed by a band who, conspiring together, committed a crime. According to court records, Ampatuan is one of the conspirators. And being accused of such, the only possible and strongest reason for his acquittal is simply an affirmative defense, meaning, it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ampatuan was never even there or he did not even know the plan of his other relatives against their political enemy.

I doubt it if Zaldy did not even know the plan to cause harm against the Mangundadatus. As a government official, it is the responsibility of the person who heard or know of some conspiracy to report such to the authorities. Zaldy should have been at least held liable for not acting on an information which he probably knew or received prior to the commission of the crime. And since this will still be heard before a court of law, at least Agra should have given the victims of the crime some latitude knowing that the crime was committed by a group of people, not by one individual.







In People vs. Bulasag (GR. no. 172869, 28 July 2008), it is ruled that: