Alvin B.

Mercadero
Legal Writing
JD 1 – 4

A Plot Seemingly Hatched in Hell and a Pardon from the Gables of God

“God, is dead, man killed God”

-Friedrich Nietzsche

The impending release of former Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez, has

generated a public clamor for a moment, it brings back the memories of that
faithful day of June 23, 1993 when a group of individuals kidnapped and gang
raped Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of her fraternity brother Allan Gomez.
That is a day, to question just what kind on people are they, how in the world
such men, can do this to their fellow? Don’t they have sisters or brothers? Or
was Nietzsche correct? That there is no better in humanity, for we killed God,
we killed that goodness in us.
A devil! a monster!
Mayor Sanchez has been painted to be the icon of the devil, the demon
clothed of a human body, a walking auspice of human indignation, the most
impure man alive, some call him a monster still salivating for woman who
deserve more lives just to serve reclusion perpetua seven more times just
how Sisyphus from Greek Methology has to carry that huge stone at his back
for eternity.
I have been reading articles in different newspapers, and as a learned man
of law, was asked to render my own verdict on the same, with all these loud
outcries of columnists and the public, I step back and consulted my
conscience, how do I feel about the subject? I remember this story of the
prodigal son in the Bible, the teachings of Jesus Christ about giving chances
to people. That after all, there is still humanity within us, that goodness.
Before anyone conclude that this is going to be another speech alike of
sermon at the mount, I am neither a Christian nor a believer, so as Thomas
Jefferson and his use of Biblical Texts were purely on its moral grounds,
having coined the phrase “men are all created equal” which is ascribed to
the declaration of Independence of America. The rights of a free man, is not
of greater weight of that right of a convict and so just when we say that justice
has been served? If a rapist convicted in 1993 and die in his cell? A man
convicted of murder to die the same way? An eye for an eye a tooth for a
tooth? Hammurabi might consider. Aren’t we civilized enough to say that
retributive justice is not justice? it is simply retaliation and putting the same
wrong to a person who wronged us, simply say the wrong will never stop.
In the case of Pio Duran vs Abad Santos, Justice Perfecto opined that
“human wreck, a derelict, does not, for the reason of his conviction, lose his
rights under our laws” the 1987 Constitution, in Article 3 section 1 states that,
no person shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law. The Constitutional safeguard here doesn’t only speak of deprivation of
liberty of a free man, but also of a man that is no longer a threat to society.
A quick background of the case. On June 23, 1993 a group of individuals
abducted Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez both students of UPLB to be
presented to the then Mayor Antonio Sanchez as a gift, as allegedly the
mayor has a long admiration to Eileen. Former Mayor Sanchez raped Eileen
in his room while Gomez was being castigated by his men. After the Mayor
finished raping Eileen, she gave her to the rest and uttered “kayo na bahala
dyan” (you’re in charge of her now), but his men, instead of freeing them,
gang raped first Eileen and killed them subsequently and just left them in
Maputok. NBI after investigation, lead them to one of their drivers who after
the incident went to Divisoria and was convinced by the authority to testify.
He then linked Mayor Sanchez to the killing of the students and thus a case
ensued which lasted 16 months of almost everyday litigation. Judge Harriet
O. Demetrious rendered the decision sentencing all the accused with seven
counts of reclusion perpetua and to pay for the damages. The accused,
appealed to Supreme Court but the decision of the RTC was upheld under
the ponentia of Justice Martinez.
The rape indeed of a teenage girl and taking her life, of her future at the same
time is so disheartening for their parents, the shrieking pain in its most
inexplicable means were like arrows with fire which cut the deepest of their
wounds, probably to this date. It is indeed a horrific experience, a scene, not
even dare crosses their minds, as to the faith of their daughter. But it is too
flamboyant to say, that there is no rule of law, when it is the law itself that is
being promulgated. The most controversial provision perhaps is this section
of RA 10592 to wit,
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender
qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this
Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or
detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following
deductions from the period of his sentence:

1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed

a deduction of twenty days for each month of good behavior
during detention;

2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment,

he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each
month of good behavior during detention;

3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five
days for each month of good behavior during detention;

4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment,

he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of
good behavior during detention; and

Former Mayor Antonio Sanchez is now serving for his 26th year of his 40-
year sentence. Applying RA 10592, he is reduced with 14 years and seven
months of his sentence and thus qualified provided that he proved to the
Chief of Bureau of Corrections and Secretary of Department of Justice that
he met all its requirements. His possession of Illegal drugs inside the jail was
dismissed and the only bar to him now is that in one instance he was caught
possessing air-conditioning unit inside his cell. If that is within the ambit of
the law to say that it is a misconduct, then so be it, it is up to the Bucor Chief
to decide. But he should not be pressured by the quails of the people. He
must decide based on the facts provided, as that is the very essence of the
law, the blindfolded lady who will only weigh the facts, rendering judgment
without prejudice to both sides.
One settled doctrine in criminal law is the equipoise rule. Based on this
doctrine, if the evidence provided by both sides were almost equal that one
leads to the conviction of one and the other leads to the acquittal, the judge
should decide in favor of the accused (People vs Genosa), as Voltaire once
said “it is better to free a guilty person, than to convict an innocent one”, also
in the tenor of Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the court
shall not suspend the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement
of the provisions of this code would result in the imposition of clearly
excessive penalty. The Revised Penal Code itself presupposes that
whatever is the mandate of the law, should be applied despite of the personal
views of the judge.
Now as for the constitutionality of the Law, that is a different question and
should be brought to the Supreme court for its adjudication. But as to its
retroactivity, it was finally decided last July 2019 that it should be applied
retroactively. As one of the exception of in the Constitutional Provision in
Article 3 section 22 on Ex-Post Facto law is whenever a new law favors the
accused, it should be applied retroactively.
In the Case of Pio Duran vs Abad Santos, when the petitioner was not
allowed to file bail even without a case filed against him, Justice Perfecto
made the following pronouncements in his sagacious dissenting opinion:

“The present controversy is part of the test mentioned by President Osmeña

when on the occasion of the 38th anniversary of the First Philippine
Assembly, on October 16, 1945, that statesman said: "As we face the future
amid the dire aftermath of the bitterly destructive war, the world is again
watching the Philippines for we faced the greatest test in all our history —
whether this nation, conceived in self-respect and dedicated to the principles
of freedom, democracy and the right of a common man, can rise out of the
ashes and build a land of promise for all." Upon signing Commonwealth Act
No. 682 on September 25, 1945, the President said: "we can assure the
Filipino people and the whole world that all who are accused of collaboration
with the enemy will be tried by the processes of law and justice, which are
firmly established here as they are elsewhere in the civilized world." We are
afraid we are not doing our part in the assurance when petitioner is denied
the equal protection of the laws, and is not released even on bail, a condition
he is willing to fulfill, although not required under the Constitution.”

“Those of us believed in the great principles of freedom as indispensable

element of human happiness, pinned their hopes for a better world on the
victory of the forces of light, the standard bearer of the democracy, the
champions of individual and collective liberties. The final victory was,
conclusively won on September 2, 1945. The meaning and the validity of
those principles are now under the test in the present case. The test is taking
place not less than in the highest tribunal of one of the proud nations which
contributed to victory with the heroism, gallantry and martyrdom of
uncounted thousands of her sons and daughters. Bataan become a new
symbol of liberty which fired the imagination, not only of millions of Filipinos,
as Balintawak did half a century ago, not only of our blood relatives such an
Indonesian and other Malayan people scattered in the Indian and Pacific
Oceans, but of hundreds of millions of liberty-loving souls all over the world.
If few cowards and mercenaries humbled themselves to lick the boots of the
insolent enemy, in temporary ascendancy, to advance with the betrayal their
personal fortunes, in numerable rivals of Bonifacio and Luna, of Jacinto and
Del Pilar, filed with their unsung gestes mountains and valleys, keeping in
wonder comrades in arms abroad, and, headed by Chief Justice Abad
Santos, many thousands of Filipino Martyrs faced death with the divine
serenity of those who have faith in the Ideal. Are our hopes to shrivel and
fade sooner than the tender petals of a beautiful orchid? Is our unbounded
faith in the blissful promises of liberty to be shaken so soon by
disappointment? Are the principles for which we fought with other
democracies like multi-colored butterflies, flying beauties while out of our
reach and dirty shreds of dead matter in the hands of a boy? Are they just
deceitful dreams, mirages and illusions?”

It is the duty of all us to keep burning the torch of liberty, collective and
individual. The role of leadership our people assumed in the fight for
democracy in this region of the globe has placed on our shoulders the burden
of a great national and international responsibility. The whole world is
watching today the gallant fight for independence of Nesiots, our brethren of
Java who have followed with envious eyes our unremitting fight for the same
ideal, initiated in the latter part of the last century, and our gigantic strides
towards the full attainment of our national aspirations. But, besides national
dignity, the real content of independence are the civil liberties of the
individual persons. At the bottom of the national freedom are the individual
freedoms. We blazed the trial of oriental freedoms. After us, under the
perspicacious leadership of Gandhi, India has been fighting for its liberation
for three decades. Now our kinsmen in Java challenge boldly Dutch
imperialism. We hope that eventually all the Malayan race shall be freed from
bondage and shall regain its position of dignity among the other races. For
God's sake, let us not recede nor retrace the steps already taken to make
personal freedom, which is the basis of all freedoms, bloom in the glory of
reality and ripen with the fullness of its magnificent meaning. “

Whereas clear on the manifestations of the case, that if no legal impediments

bar the release of Sanchez, applying RA 10592, he should be released and
so as the other eleven thousand inmates that were lined-up. We should not
be bias just because people hates his release, that he was once a rapist, a
murderer. Remember that, for once Noah killed an Egyptian, St Peter
slashed the ear of one of the captors of Jesus, that for once, David ordered
for the killing of the husband of Bathsheba so he can marry the latter, that
for once we do wrong, but how have one become 25 years later in the cell,
what coincides in his mind within that small room of cold bricks where all that
he can see is a small light from above, or was it finally for a murderer, a
rapist, a convict the light from the Gables of God? That after those
repentance, society is ready to accept him, that society once killed God by
killing humanity, morality, that there is no more goodness in us, yet it is
revived.