RETRACTION seems to be the flavor of the year now, especially for high-profile cases. What usually comes out in the news is that a witness (or witnesses) writes a rock steady confession implicating a personality in a highprofile crime. The prosecutors preen about having an open and shut case. In most cases, the accused lingers in jail.

Until suddenly, the witnesses make a turnaround, denying their “rock-solid statements,” claiming that they were under duress, were tortured, or threatened. In a celebrated case, a senator, who had languished in detention for six years was finally acquitted, largely in part through the retraction of the major witness.

Here comes the latest high-profile case, the premeditated murder of Negros Oriental governor Roel Degamo. In similar fashion, witnesses pointed to several persons who allegedly perpetrated the crime, as well as the mastermind. It seemed like another crime was nearing resolution. However, just a few days ago, the witnesses retracted their statements, claiming they were tortured. This is getting to be repetitive and annoying; it seems that certain individuals are making a mockery of the justice system, slowing the turtle-paced processes even more.

Now, the prosecution is put on the defensive, having not only a legal debacle but also a PR nightmare, as many persons perceive authorities to resort to torture in obtaining confessions, coupled with watching too many spy movies. This distraction does wonders for the accused as well.

Retraction, and its consequences leading to acquittal, emboldens criminals since it is becoming acceptable and credible that confessions are done only when under duress, and the authorities turn out to be part of the guilt rather than the solution.

I am under the impression that confessions come in the form of affidavits. These affidavits include the acknowledgment that these statements are made of their own free will, without any pressure nor threats and are notarized as public documents.

Retractions therefore run counter to these acknowledgments and avowals.

But are there no safeguards to prevent the abuse of these practices? If they say something to prosecute someone, and then retract, will the accused go free every time? Is there no penalty for persons who issue sworn statements and then retract?

Perjury comes to mind. Perjury is the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.

Republic Act 11594, enacted on Oct. 29, 1991, Article 183: False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly (underscoring mine) making untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.

Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein:

Provided, That is, the person responsible for the commission of this felony is a public officer or employee, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period: Provided, finally, That the offender shall also suffer a fine not to exceed one million pesos (P1,000,000) and perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any appointive or elective position in the government or in any agency, entity, or instrumentality thereof.

Section 2 states thus: Article 184 of the same act, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence. - Any person who shall willfully and knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony (underscoring mine) in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties provided in this section.

The underscored words clearly indicate that any person who knows that he/she is making a false statement is legally liable and shall suffer the penalties as provided for by law.

Perjury means lying under oath. But what if the liar does so because he was tortured, forced, made to suffer bodily harm, or is threatened? Does this exonerate him from the crime? Does this affect his credibility? Does this impact the advantage of the accused? If this retraction is accepted by the court, isn’t this an indictment of the authorities? Does this case then rely heavily on the competence of the judge?

As lawyers are wont to do, they present differing legal arguments. Do we take these arguments as the truth? Does the truth have many sides then? Is gray the new black or white?

If the above isn’t resolved, then expect more impunity, more heinous crimes, chaos and anarchy.