The Value of the Tipster and State Witness; their differences and everything else in between

Solving a crime and making the charges stick all the way to securing a conviction are two different things. For the CSI fanatics, the story ends when the character Grisham and company (sigh, wish he was still with the series) finally nails the perp (for perpetrator) through the amazing science of modern forensic. But for the prosecutor who must string together the case and file the charges in court, it is just the start of a long and tedious battle, that, had the police done their homework, would have gotten a more than fighting chance in the arena that is the court room.

This is why so many cases abound where the law enforcers nab the culprit but then they get away because so many things happened along the way to its landing in the prosecutor's office. Let me me name some of them culled from my six years of practicing law and reading legal tomes as well everything else I have absorped through osmosis (e.g. read in novels, caught in conversations, watched on tv and the movies) processed in the gray matter between my ears (read: analyzed)

One. Failure to follow procedure. Most basic of course is the respect for the constitutional rights of the suspect turned accused. They are a-plenty but let me just cite a few, like the Miranda rights for instance (taken from the American model and enshrined in our constitution) that must be read to an accused before he is arrested. In the Philippines, it won't however affect much the merits of his case but would consequate administrative sanctions for the arresting officers. But one of the most important procedures that must never be overlooked in a succesful prosecution of a criminal case, is the observance of securing a search warrant or making a valid warrantless search and seizure before searching a suspect's place or his place of crime. Failure to do so would mean the suppression of the evidence gained by such improper search following the doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree". While there are still many procedures that must be undertaken prior to the actual filing of the case in court let me just elaborate one more which I would rather call a legal strategy. Take the chain of custody of evidence for instance. This must be established in court and may only be done if proper documentation is made everytime evidence changes hands. Defense lawyers would grab the opportunity to prove that the integrity of the evidence now before the court is tainted all by proving the chain of lawful custody was broken thus, giving persons other than those authorized time and opportunity to make a switch or otherwise taint it.

Two. Bungling the groundwork. This is one of the reasons why I envy the American model where the district attorney (the equivalent of public prosecutor in the Philippines) is always in constant coordination with the police. This way, the groundwork, that is the gathering of all the essential evidence that would be needed in court, is guided by a legal mind who knows what shall hold water and what shall not. A coordinated effort also results in the protection of the integrity of evidence as well as eliminate fruitless energy spent in chasing evidence that would either prove irrelevant or inadmissible.

Three. Recantation and/or disappearance of witnesses. It can't be helped, whistleblowing and testifying is a listed cause of death and serious injuries in the Philippines and elsewhere. This is why police encounters problems in having a witness sign an affidavit and testify in court without whom their case cannot survive. There are mechanisms in place like the witness protection program, but lets face it, who would want to live the rest of their lives in hiding, away from friends and relatives? Fear of reprisal would keep even brave souls from helping solve a crime or put the perpetrator of a crime behind bars as conscience is supressed by considerations of safety for the self and family.

The third reason I just cited brings me to the other subject included in the title of this post which is, the value of the tipster and turning state witness. An anonymous call more often than not provide the lead that has been prayed for by law enforcers in a stymied case, one where the trail of the criminal has gone cold. The tipster gives vital information that brings the police to any of the following: place of the crime, body of the crime or evidence that would inevitably name the perp and link him to the crime. Because of his chosen anonymity, the tipster can never be presented in court but he provides, through the information he gives, leads for police to secure witnesses or evidence that can stand legal scrutiny.

A close cousin of the anonymous tipster is the suspect turned state witness. There are actually two kinds, I call them the "voluntary" and the "involuntary" types based on the initial reasons that turn them into one.

The "involuntary" or reluctant state witness* is the suspect who has been caught and makes a deal with the prosecution in order to lighten his sentence or even be totally discharged (i.e. dropped from the information to testify against his co-perpetrators, this, however, would require court approval). If he is the least guilty and has testimony without which there can be no succesful prosecution of the case, then he can qualify to be discharged.

The other one, the one who "volunteers" information but unlike the anonymous tipster, shows himself or gives himself up is the result of paranoia. The criminals, in their desire to cover their tracks begins to eliminate all who might have knowledge of their misdeeds including accomplices. They fear that one of them might eventually squeal and on the other hand, the others also fear that they might be killed for suspicion of squealing on their cohorts. Paranoia, apart from conscience, drives these "voluntary" state witnesses and more often than not leads to the unraveling of a crime.

There is no such thing as a perfect crime but with the advent of modern forensics as well as effective use thereof and bettter partnership between law enforcers and prosecutors, pehaps the adage crime does not pay would would have more relevance in our country.

*The term "state witness" is used generally but in Philippine legal parlance, this refers to an accused who is discharged from the Information or charge, following certain requirements or requisites, to become witness for the prosecution.