Hilum, Jeric Lopera

LLB 1 - EXE

Motion: This House shall prosecute crimes without the aid of an accused as a state witness.

First Argument

There is no need for an accused to be a state witness in prosecuting crimes. This practice of
the government is perilous for many reasons. Of course there is a need for the government to review
the credibility of the accused in giving testimony to qualify as a witness. However, cases such as
witnesses giving incredible testimonies do happen. As it was in the case of People v. Lejano, the
state witness, Jessica Alfaro, she was not really a state witnes per se, as she was already under the
WPP when the information was filed before the court but still DOJ would manage to do such.
Alfaro offered to be one of the witnesses, despite that she one of the suspects to the crime. She is
also known an informant who is involved in illegal drug trade and always mingle with other
criminals and gangs. As the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, she claimed a positive
identification that Webb and his co-principals were indeed the people behind the crime.The problem
in using accuses as a witness against his co-accused is that, according to Judge Stephen Trott of
U.S. Court of Appeals;

Criminals are likely to say and do almost anything to get what they want, especially when
what they want is to get out of trouble with the law. This willingness to do anything includes not
only truthfully spilling the beans on friends and relatives, but also lying, committing perjury,
manufacturing evidence, soliciting others to corroborate their lies with more lies, and double-
crossing anyone with whom they come into contact, including the prosecutor. A drug addict can
sell out his mother to get a deal, and burglars, robbers, murders, and thieves are not far behind.
Criminals are remarkably manipulative and skillfully devious. Many are outright conscienceless
sociopaths to whom "truth" is a wholly meaningless concept. To some, "conning" people is a way
of life. Others are just basically unstable people. A "reliable informant" one day may turn into a
consummate prevaricator the next.

As witnesses, they can really give testimonies according to their own desires, that is to either
lessen the gravity of the offense based on their testimonies, or even implicate an innocent person for
a crime that he did not really committed. Later on the case we would find out that her credibility
would be questioned due to her story that lacks sense and inherent inconsistences. She gave a
positive identification against Webb and others and as it was decided in case of Soriano v. People;
"a positive identification of a witness weighs more than an alibi". This would result in Webb and his
alleged accomplices serving a very long time in prison. But later on the ruling of the High Court,
they were exculpated from those crime, however they have already served jail time, years after their
conviction. An innocent person went to jail due to this mistakes.

The State's justification for sacrificing one conviction against the witness to prosecute the
most guilty is useless if this method will be wrongly utilized. It is really regrettable if a crime would
be left unsolved and guilty ones will be left unpunishe, however, it is more lamentable if an
innocent person will be convicted because of wrongful use of this method. Procedures like this if
not carefully done, would degrade the criminal justice system and people would lose faith in it as a
consequence.