Lapu-Lapu City RTC Judge Nelson Leyco called for a review of evidence rules in corruption cases, noting that current standards may hinder accountability for the misuse of public funds.
In his resolution for the P96.5-million Davao Occidental flood control project case, Leyco granted bail to Cezarah Discaya and Czar Ryan Ubungen while denying bail to eight other co-accused individuals.
Leyco emphasized that judges must adhere to existing laws and constitutional values, but argued that procedural frameworks should evolve to balance individual liberties with the need to address complex corruption schemes.
LAPU-LAPU City Regional Trial Court Judge Nelson Leyco has urged a review of how corruption cases are proved, saying in a separate article attached to his bail ruling that judges must apply existing law even when the result may be unpopular.
Leyco made the remarks in a separate two-page writing, a two-page writing titled “Reflections Beyond the Case: A Humble Plea for Re-Examination,” attached to a resolution involving contractor Cezarah “Sarah” Discaya and nine co-accused in the alleged P96.5-million Davao Occidental flood control project case.
“If we genuinely aspire to make meaningful progress in the fight against corruption, perhaps it is time to entertain ideas that have long been regarded as beyond discussion. Thinking outside the box should not be mistaken for a willingness to abandon constitutional values,” Leyco said.
“On the contrary, it is an invitation to critically examine whether our existing procedural framework continues to strike the appropriate balance between safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring genuine accountability. The law, after all, is not intended to be static,” he added.
Court limits
In the resolution, Leyco allowed Discaya to post P1 million bail and Department of Public Works and Highways Davao Occidental finance officer Czar Ryan Ubungen to post P300,000 bail. Bail was denied to eight other accused.
Leyco acknowledged that the ruling could be viewed as a setback in the fight against corruption, but said judges are duty-bound to decide cases according to existing statutes and jurisprudence, regardless of their personal views.
“I am not unaware that this resolution may be viewed as a setback in the fight against corruption,” he said. “That lingering thought made it even more difficult to gather the resolve to issue what will most likely be an unpopular decision.”
Evidence rules
According to Leyco, judges must decide cases based on the law, but should not be barred from asking whether legal rules and procedures continue to serve justice.
“Our present system places such a premium on the constitutional presumption of innocence that, in practice, it has become an obstacle to accountability in certain instances, especially in cases involving the corruption or misuse of public funds,” Leyco said.
He clarified that his observations were not meant to weaken the constitutional presumption of innocence, which he described as one of the principal cornerstones of the country’s criminal justice system.
Instead, he called for discussion on whether the current rules on evidence properly balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect public funds.
Legal standard
Leyco said the 1987 Constitution provides that an accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The familiar requirement that guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt, he said, is found in the Rules of Court issued by the Supreme Court under its constitutional rule-making power.
Whether that standard has become constitutionally entrenched through jurisprudence or remains subject to the Supreme Court’s procedural rule-making authority, he said, is a question worthy of scholarly and judicial review.
The judge also pointed to the difficulty of prosecuting complex corruption cases. Those who benefit most from illegal schemes, he said, often work through layers of intermediaries, making it difficult to establish criminal liability against alleged masterminds under existing standards.
“Our current legal framework has existed for decades. It would be unrealistic to assume that unscrupulous individuals have not, over time, discovered ways to circumvent its safeguards,” Leyco said.
Call for review
Leyco said he expected criticism over the resolution, but hoped it would prompt a wider discussion on possible legal reforms.
“Perhaps that is precisely what is needed to spark meaningful discussion and serve as a catalyst for change,” he said.
He said questioning existing legal mechanisms should not be mistaken for abandoning constitutional protections. Rather, he said, it should be seen as an invitation to examine whether present procedures still strike the proper balance between individual liberties and public accountability.
“The law, after all, is not intended to be static. It must remain faithful to its dynamic nature by continually evolving in response to the changing needs and challenges of society across different eras and generations,” Leyco said. / DPC