POLITICAL PERSECUTION AS A GROUND TO JUSTIFY THE PROHIBITION OF A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Indeed, this Court has recognized that, in certain instances, political persecution or political motives may have impelled the filing of criminal charges against certain political rivals. But this Court has also ruled that any allegation that the filing of the charges is politically motivated cannot justify the prohibition of a criminal prosecution if there is otherwise evidence to support the charges (Paredes, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 322 Phil. 709, 732-733 (1996). x x x x  To establish political harassment, respondents must prove that the public prosecutor, not just the private complainant, acted in bad faith in prosecuting the case or has lent himself to a scheme that could have no other purpose than to place respondents in contempt and disrepute. It must be shown that the complainant possesses the power and the influence to control the prosecution of cases. (Paredes, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 322 Phil. 709, 732-733 (1996).  x x x x  Likewise, the allegation that the filing of the complaint was politically motivated does not serve to justify the nullification of the informations where the existence of such motive has not been sufficiently established nor substantial evidence presented in support thereof (Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 324 Phil. 151, 167 (1996).  x x x x

Other than their own self-serving claims, respondents have adduced absolutely no proof of the perceived political persecution being waged by their rivals. Respondents have not shown any evidence of such a grand design. They have not alleged, much less proved, any ill motive or malice that could have impelled the provincial prosecutor, the judge, and even the Secretary of Justice to have respectively ruled in the way each of them did. In short, respondents are holding tenuously only on the hope that this Court will take them at their word and grant the relief they pray for. This Court, however, cannot anchor its ruling on mere allegations. Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be preferred to ferret out the truth (AAA v. Carbonell, supra note 48, at 511, citing Abugotal v. Judge Tiro, 160 Phil. 884, 890 (1975) If, as respondents claim, there is no evidence of their culpability, then their petition for bail would easily be granted. Thereafter, the credibility of the prosecution’s and the accused’s respective evidence may be tested during the trial. It is only then that the guilt or innocence of respondents will be determined. Whether the criminal prosecution was merely a tool for harassment or whether the prosecution’s evidence can pass the strict standards set by the law and withstand the exacting scrutiny of the court will all be resolved at the trial of the case. The criminal Information in this case was filed four years ago and trial has yet to begin. The victim’s kin, indeed, all the parties, are awaiting its resolution. Any further delay will amount to an injustice. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEPH "JOJO" V. GREY, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010, NACHURA, J.)