RESEARCH TITLE: Judge and Jury, or Judge Alone: Which is a more effective judicial system

in handling criminal proceedings for the Philippines?

PARTS/SECTION DATE COMMENTS/REMARKS SCORES

SUBMITTED

BACKGROUND OF THE 1ST DRAFT

STUDY 05/26/20
Author/s: 2ND DRAFT
Laurente, Emmanuel Cesar FINAL
A. 05/30/20

REVIEW OF RELATED 1ST DRAFT

LITERATURE 05/26/20
Author/s: 2ND DRAFT
Arriola, Adrian James M. FINAL
Laurente, Emmanuel Cesar 05/30/20
A.

STATEMENT OF THE 1ST DRAFT

PROBLEM 04/28/20
Author/s: 2ND DRAFT
Laurente, Emmanuel Cesar FINAL
A. 05/30/20

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 1ST DRAFT

STUDY 2ND DRAFT
Author/s: FINAL
Arriola, Adrian James M. 05/30/20

THEORETICAL OR 1ST DRAFT

CONCEPTUAL 2ND DRAFT
FRAMEWORK FINAL
Author/s: 05/30/20
Laurente, Emmanuel Cesar
A.

Other comments:
 The Pontifical and Royal
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
The Catholic University of the Philippines
Manila

JUDGE AND JURY, OR JUDGE ALONE: WHICH IS A MORE

EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN HANDLING CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PHILIPPINES?

A Research Proposal Introduction

Presented to
the Faculty of Arts and Letters
University of Santo Tomas

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Course
Academic Writing

Presented by

ARRIOLA, Adrian James M.

LAURENTE, Emmanuel Cesar A.

______________
ELE A3-2

May 2020
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

I. Background of the Study

Where a law is silent or ambiguous, or at times inconsistent with other policies

governing the land, the administration of justice is dependent on the judicial system upon their

application of the law in lieu of fairness, impartiality, and honesty. The judiciary has the

responsibility of safeguarding the fundamental rights of every citizen. It is the source of

confidence and courage of a common man in a time of a controversy, therefore, it can be

considered as the guardian and protector of the rule of law for the achievement of peace (Ghai,

n.d.). Although it is true that the traditional view of the judicial function tampers the true nature

of a judicial process, as history dictates numerous occasions of wrongful conviction and bias in

courtrooms, each day we must strive to better this in order to evolve the system of

checks-and-balances in the government. In this sense, the role of the judiciary in making

equitable decisions, preserving human rights and liberties, and setting a precedent for future

resolution of disputes of the State shall not be taken lightly.

In the Philippines, the Judicial System is based on a system of Bench Trial. Here,

the judge acts as both the decision-maker and the fact-finder. After the prosecutor has

presented the case, called the witnesses to testify, cross-examined testimonies and

evidence, and argue with the opposing party, it is the judge’s obligation to determine

whether these are substantive and shall prove the defendant's guilt of the crime beyond

a reasonable doubt (Baldwin, n.d.). The judge, then, renders the verdict as to whether or

not the accused is guilty or not guilty. He is also tasked to deliver the sentencing and/or

decide on the charges cost.

1
 In other countries, specifically in the United States of America, a Jury Trial is exercised.

This is a judicial proceeding before a jury of six or twelve (at special circumstances, fifteen) who

have been carefully picked through a process of vior dire and summoned by the court to

determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges against him. Although

the procedures are similar with a Bench Trial, the judge, in this system, acts merely as the

facilitator. He rules on the procedural and evidentiary issues such as who can testify, what

witnesses can testify about, and what documents or physical evidence the jury can consider; but

the verdict is in the hands of the jury.

It has been held by many that jury-tried cases proceed longer and exhausts more judicial

efforts than judge-tried cases. A close reading on the opinion of Judge Richard Poser of the

Seventh Circuit, for instance, reveals that based on his quantified measure on trial proceedings,

he observed that “the average federal civil jury trial in 1983 lasted 4.48 days, compared to 2.21

days for the average non jury trial.” In this sense, jury trials consume about twice as much time

as judge trials for the reason jury-tried cases require jury selection and instruction first before

proceeding on the presentation of evidence and ruling. However, explanations for this reality

also include that the cases handled by jury systems are more complex, and thus, necessitates

more time (Eisenberg & Clermont, 1996). Hence, in order for us to determine which of which

takes more time, we must elaborately compare how long a criminal trial occurs in a state where

a Jury Trial is available versus a state where Bench Trial is the only existing system for Justice.

Furthermore, precedents and history dictates that both of these judicial systems are not

exempt to possibilities of mistrial. Throughout the years, wrongful acquittals and wrongful

conviction is not a concept foreign to the legal systems across the globe.

Despite the fundamental process of selecting and deselecting the pool of jury involved

in a jury trial to remove potential impartial jurors, Hannaford-Agor and Waters found that the

2
juror’s self-assessment of their biases may lead to inconsistencies which may later pose

challenges in the administration of justice. For example, in a study they have conducted, they

were able to discover that in thirteen (13) felony trials, not a single juror who ascertained that

they could be fair in spite of their apparent bias - e.g., a potential juror on a rape case who

disclosed she was raped as a child, and a former correctional employee who knew the

defendant as a prior inmate, was removed (Rose, 2005); and thus, later compromised and

affected their verdict.

Furthermore, although Bench Trials are not as frequent as Jury Trials in the United

States, there is a 13% error rate reported in murder conviction translating to more than 200,000

(Furman, 2003). In the Philippines, where Bench Trial is the only option, the Supreme Court

disclosed in 2004 a high judicial error rate of 71.77% in capital punishment cases (People v.

Mateo, GR No. 147678-87, 07 July 2004). This means 717,700 Filipinos per 1,000,000 were

wrongfully accused and have been robbed of the opportunity of liberty. 717,700 rights

fundamentally left unprotected.

For this main reason, this study aims to further examine which of these two systems

would render justice effectively; that is, which of these two can render judgements more

accurately and which can administer it quickly.

II. Review of Related Literature

1. 1. Judicial System in the Philippines

In the Philippines, courts functioned without a jury. It is common that there is a delay in

criminal cases and detention periods in national security cases take some time in order to be

processed. The judicial system of the Philippines began in the spanish era but it was not made

for the benefit of the Filipinos. In the 1987 constitution, the judicial system was fully established

3
and the judicial power rested within the Supreme Court and the Lower Courts as may be

established by law. The legal system in the Philippines is a mixture of customary usage, it is

heavily influenced by the following:

A. American Law

The American influence can be traced back when Jones Law was enacted

in the Philippines by the American Congress on August 29, 1916. It was the first

official declaration of the United States to give the Philippine government its

independence. The ultimate goal of Jones Law was to give the Philippines full

independence until there is an established stable government.

The contribution of the Jones law in the current constitution is that they

gave the Philippine legislature general legislative power. It also gave the

Filipinos greater involvement in the government through confirmation power

over appointments of officers in the government’s Executive and Judicial

Branches. After the enactment of the Jones law the Commonwealth Congress was

born and it changed the legislative system when a unicameral National

Assembly was convened as provided in the 1935 Constitution.

B. Spanish Law

The civil code of the Philippines was strongly influenced by the spanish

Código Civil. It was first enforced in 1889 and was eventually adopted by the

Philippine Constitution. The Civil Code of the Philippines governs family and

property relations in the Philippines and still in force to date with some

amendments. It is most evident in the books on property, succession and

obligations and contracts

4
C. Shari’a Law

The Shari’a or Islamic law is classified under one of the special laws as

dictated by the constitution. It is a law which only applies to the Muslims. They

have jurisdiction over the majority of the Muslims as well as other parts of

Mindanao. President Ferdinand Marcos was the one who issued the Presidential

Decree 1083 that resulted in the Sharia court system in the Philippines. Their

court was under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the

Philippines.

The religious characteristics if islamic family law are not implemented in

the country. The country's Shari'ah court is an integral part of the Philippine

judiciary, yet deprived of authority to enforce religious rulings or administer

Islamic religious bodies. The Shari'ah court's decision can be appealed to the

Philippines Supreme Court, whose ruling may likely deviate from the Shari'ah 's

basic teachings (Ali, 2010).

D. Indigenous Law

The 1997 Indigenous People’s rights Act is a legislation that recognizes

and promotes all the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous

People of the Philippines (Official Gazette, 1997). The purpose of this act is to

ensure or protect their customs, traditions, values, beliefs, interests and

institutions, and to adopt and implement measures to protect their rights to their

ancestral domains.

5
1.2. Bench Trial

During the spanish period the inquisitorial system was in effect in the Philippines which

means that the judge or a group of judges was involved in investigating the case however when

the American took over the Philippines in the 20th century the Adversarial system was

introduced. Currently, the Philippine trial system was Adversarial in nature. The position of

both parties was first introduced before the judge can make a decision. Each party has its own

power case in point, they have full control on how they will represent their evidence. The

contracting parties are responsible for starting the proceedings, examining the evidence of the

case, which witness to call, and which evidence to present. In short they have full control of

their own case on how they will present it and they will be responsible on what will be the

outcome of the case. The dispute of the two parties will not be interfered by the state however a

Judge will render a decision on which party will win the case.

The role of the Judge is to keep fairness in the proceedings, each party should be given a

chance to present their positions and make a decision but most Judges based their judgement on

the admissibility of the evidence. They ensure that the burden of proof is discharged and decide

the case (Millan, n.d.). Whenever there is no enough evidence to present in the trial proceedings

to prove the guilt of the accused, the defense can always file a demurrer to evidence which

means that the motion will be dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

1.3. Jury Trial in the United States

In the 1776 Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson explicitly cited the value of

the jury system in the Declaration's litany of grievances against King George III and the English

government, "To deprive us, in many cases, of the advantages of Jury Trials." Four years later

John Adams, who had collaborated with Jefferson on the Declaration, wrote the Massachusetts

6
Constitution. Established in 1780, the Constitution of Massachusetts is the oldest constitution in

the world to be in continuous service since its ratification. This guaranteed the right to a jury

trial of an individual, as specifically derived from England’s common law (Box, 1953); hence, the

same has paved a way to the establishment of the three types of juries up until this; these are

individually classified into:

Criminal Grand Juries

A grand jury consists of 16 to 23 citizens empowered by the United States Federal

or State Law. They play a major role and are often used as part of criminal procedure

when it comes to bringing an indictment against a potential defendant, however, they do

not involve in finding guilt or punishment of a party. In the proceedings of a grand jury,

only the prosecutor is present. They work together to gather evidence and hear

testimony. Preliminary hearings of a Grand Jury are meant to determine whether there is

enough evidence, or probable cause, to indict a criminal suspect. They are a valuable test

run for prosecutors in making the decision to bring the case (Hoffmeister, 2008).

Criminal Petit Juries

A petit jury consists of 6 to 12 people, similarly a random group of individuals

empowered by the State, determines whether or not the defendant committed the crime

as charged in a criminal case, or whether or not the defendant in a civil case injured the

plaintiff. Unlike the Grand Jury, Petit jury hears the evidence presented by both parties

during a trial and therefore renders a verdict. They are supervised by the judge, which

can later dismiss and set aside the concurring verdict when the jury fails to recognize the

gravity of the evidence at bar (Deitch, 2018).

7
 Civil Juries

In a civil case, the 7th amendment of the United States addressed the right to trial

by jury. It does not give rise to a jury trial; rather, it preserves the right to a jury trial

which existed in common law in 1791. Trial by jury consists of 12 people who were

empowered by a Judge. In the civil jury proceedings, the judge informed the jury about

the law and were advised on the following facts. The civil jury can verdict a case and can

step aside a judge's decision if they find biases or the verdict is against the law and the

evidence. The jury’s decision must be unanimous and it should be held by a 4 to 5 vote

(Grenig, n.d.).

Although independently functioning, these three work hand-in-hand in

providing a speedy and public trial, as well as an impartial justice which further

safeguards the rights of every American citizen, in compliance with the 6th amendment

of the United States. Furthermore, these three continued to thrive in order to prevent

repression by the government.

1.4. Criminal Cases

Criminal cases are laws that apply to criminal acts. In cases where a person refuses to

adhere to a specific criminal statute, by violating the law, he or she is committing a criminal act.

This body of laws is distinct from civil law, as sentences under criminal law include deprivation

of one’s right and imprisonment. Criminal cases are generally graded as felonies or

misdemeanors depending on their character and the maximum penalty that can be applied.

Crimes that are categorized as felonies are usually punishable by death or more than a year in

jail. The crimes that do not fall under this category are small violations that can be punishable of

not more than 1 year in prison. Examples of criminal offenses include:

8
1. Assault

In the event of an assault, the threat of harm to a person but not the

danger will be treated as an misdemeanor but assault that causes injuries or

weapon is present will be considered as felony

2. Disturbing the peace

Disturbing the peace is a common charge that includes fighting, bullying,

and mobilizing an unlawful public assembly. It is most of the time considered as

a misdemeanor and it is rare to classify it as a felony but it depends on the

gravity or the weight of the offense.

3. Drugs

Simple drug possession is considered misdemeanor. It will just be

considered a felony if it involves more than the simple drug possession for

example, becoming a drug syndicate, having a drug cartel or operation and the

quality of the drugs that you intend to sell.

4. Theft

It has differing levels of severity. Petty theft is taking a property or money

to someone without their consent. The gravity of the offense will depend on the

amount or value of the stolen property or money.

5. Traffic violations

It also has differing levels of severity. Traffic violations that involve

speeding, driving without license, and driving under the influence are

considered misdemeanor. It will just be qualified as a felony if there will be an

accident and vehicular homicide that is present.

9
 In the Philippines there are three types of felonies, it can be consummated, frustrated,

and attempted. There are many circumstances that you can be a liability in a crime committed

and there are also penalties that can be imposed to these offenders. Criminal offenders under

the Philippine law are guaranteed under article 3 of the 1987 constitution. They are presumed

innocent until proven guilty and that is where due process will be given and the right of the

accused to be informed of the charges against them. Judicial procedure in criminal cases

includes arraignment, jury, and verdict and sentencing by the judge. In court where the

complaint or information is filed, the accused must first be arraigned. A defendant must be

present to plead with the crime, except in certain minor cases where he or she may have a

lawyer appear.

1.5. Key Differences in Procedure and Decision-Making

Bench Trial

A noticeable difference between bench and jury trial is that in a trial by the judge (Bench

Trial), the judge acts as both the fact finder and the one who heads up the legal issues presented.

Here, courtroom procedures are facilitated and facts are heard based upon their knowledge and

interpretation of the law.

For example, when it comes to objections raised in criminal proceedings, the judge in a

bench trial will rule on the objection (a legal issue) while compiling the facts of the case (a

factual issue). This information can be a shock for some people because they are not aware that

a judge in a bench trial essentially wears two hats (Boston, 2019).

Bench Trials entail that the judge assigned to the case will decide upon the ruling after

which the plaintiff and the defendant have presented their arguments and evidence. Basically,

the role of the judge as the sole decision-making body of the case renders him the jurisdiction

10
over the injunction, admissibility, and appropriation of the evidence; hence, a trial like this. His

or her decision is deemed final, unless a petition for certiorari and a motion for reconsideration is

moved.

Jury Trial

In a trial by jury, an eligible citizen of the respective locality is summoned by the court,

in which he or she is obliged to appear despite his prior commitments (Dee, n.d). They are

carefully selected through a system of inquiry called vior dire, which was designed to determine

the personal feelings of the jury pool (Laukkonen, n.d.). Here, both parties are entitled to reject a

certain number of potential jurors.

Lawyers and judges typically describe the purpose of vior dire as revealing which

prospective jurors have biases that preclude them from serving on the petit or grand jury in a

particular case--this is mainly because only jurors who are impartial are permitted to serve. This

is strictly practiced for criminal trials as this line of questioning enables judges and lawyers of

both parties to identify and prevent impartiality. For instance, if a criminal case is being tried,

questions may relate to whether the potential jurors have been victims or what their personal

feelings are towards the crime involved. If found so, judges move those prospective jurors who

they believe can nurture and inflict biases to ensure that neutrality and impartiality of the

judicial system will, indeed, be preserved (Marder, 2015).

After deliberate identification of the jurors assigned to the case at bar, this group of

twelve (12) individuals will hear facts of the case and make judgements solely based on the

evidence and arguments presented during the trial. This jury, specifically, listens to the

testimonies from the plaintiff, defendant, and witnesses. While the judge makes the final

decisions in the courtroom, the jury is responsible for deciding the case in favor of the plaintiff

or defendant (Staff, 2016).

11
 However, when legal issues are brought up, these will be taken care of by the judge. For

example, if a witness is testifying as to what someone else told them, then an objection might be

made to the judge. Once this happens, the judge will make the legal ruling on the objection. The

jury will have no control over this issue. In addition, the judge will also instruct the jury as to

the relevant law that will be used in the case, as the jury applies the facts to the law (Boston,

2019).

The biggest take-away here is that although in both types of trials, the judge is tasked

with the interpretation and application of the law; in a jury trial, decisions are more likely

influenced by the character of the witnesses, how the facts were played out and laid to the jury,

and parties’ appeal on the motions rather than the legal technicalities and referencing involved,

while in a bench trial, the judge both acts as the fact-finder and courier of verdict.

1.6. Effectiveness of a Bench Trial

When one talks about a bench trial, its effectiveness is always questioned. Some might

argue that a Bench Trial is less likely to commit an error since the Jude is very powerful and has

a duty to oversee all facts in the eyes of the law with no biases involved whatsoever. But

oftentimes, there are still wrongful convictions committed in a Bench Trial. So the question of

how accurate and effective a bench trial is, continually lingers.

According to Mauet (2002), a Bench Trial is time-savvy. With that, the judge will want

the lawyers handling the case to state as many facts and legal issues as possible. The judge will

focus on the key disputed facts and issues as fast as possible. Discouraging unnecessary

repetition of proof on collateral materials. Alongside this, the judge’s notion of what is only

necessary to hear and see trumps the lawyers’ notions of what the judge should hear and see.

12
They are more concerned about the elements of claims, damages, and defenses and how you

will prove the disputed ones.

Bench Trials are indeed speedy and potentially saves a lot of time but it’s important to

take note that speedy trials doesn’t mean correct convictions. Further studies have been

conducted to test the effectiveness of bench trials over the years, but its effectiveness is yet to be

proven as statistics are annually changing.

1.6.1. Wrongful Convictions in Bench Trials

In the U.S., bench trials don't happen as much as jury trials do. They only happen

10-15% of the time. Which is why its credibility and effectiveness in rendering the proper

verdicts have been constantly put to the test. Generally, there have been reported 350

cases of wrongful convictions in America between the years 1900 and 1984. It is

reported that there is a 13% error rate in murder conviction translating to more than

200,000. 99.5% of convictions are valid and some might say that it’s really not that big of

a deal but this particular number translates to 7,700 innocent people being convicted of

crimes they did not commit in the first place (Furman, 2003).

A Bench trial is the only type of trial present in the Philippine Judicial system.

Wrongful convictions are not new to the country. In the year 2004, the Supreme Court

released statistics that showed a high judicial error rate of 71.77 % in capital cases

(People v. Mateo, GR No. 147678-87, 07 July 2004). Just imagine how many innocent

people are locked behind bars up to this day due to this loophole in the Philippine

Judicial system. An example of an inconsistent verdict rendered by a judge alone trial is

the case of the Chiong sisters. In the year 1997 in Cebu, the Chiong sisters disappeared

while they were waiting for their father to pick them up from work. The body of Marijoy

then surfaced after a few days but her sister’s body was nowhere to be found. People

13
were quick to point fingers to Larrañaga, who happens to be 300 miles away at the time

of the disappearance of the Chiong sisters. He is allegedly wrongfully convicted of

kidnap, rape, and murder. (People v. Larrañaga, 2004)

Certain inconsistencies like this must be eradicated from the system altogether.

The judicial system is present in order to render fair trials and see in the eyes of the law

and not with a commoner’s eyes. Justice must always be served regardless of social

status, age, race, gender, or any extralegal factor that should not be considered in the

first place.

1.6.2. Accuracy of Bench Trials and Statistics

According to Mauet (2002), " A bench trial should never be just a bench trial. A bench

trial is an opportunity for good advocacy by good trial lawyers, and opportunities exist at each

stage of the trial."

It is a given fact that trials are held for ascertainment of the truth and justice.

Which is why in a bench trial, overly emotional storytelling or blatant appeals to

sympathy should not hinder the judge from rendering the right verdict. The judge’s

decision on bench trials should primarily be analytical and not emotional not because

emotion has no part on trial but mainly judges should not be blinded to the

consequences of their decisions. The law must always be encompassing which is why

the accuracy of bench trials have been questioned and thoroughly studied about for

centuries.

Mauet (2002), also stated that in about 10-15% of criminal cases trials are bench

trials. In another research conducted by Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U. S.

Department of Justice, Gaskins(1986) stated that approximately 583,000 persons

convicted of felony in state courts, only (19,801) 3% were found guilty by a judge, 8%

14
 were found guilty by a jury, and 89% pleaded guilty. 71% of the bench trial verdicts led

to convictions and were sentenced to prison.

1.7. Effectiveness of a Jury Trial

Juries play a huge role in maintaining a check-and-balance within the legal structure of

society. According to Forsyth (2010), there is a huge tendency for individuals to lose their own

sense of decision and individuality when placed among a group of powerful people. But it is

also a fact that a jury trial is more likely to provide a fairer, a more sympathetic hearing. The

effectiveness of a Jury Trial is often questioned for the very reason that there are certain factors

that jurors are considering that may sometimes serve as a bias.

Ford (2016), stated that in a context of a jury trial, certain extralegal factors may

potentially influence a verdict. These factors include jury composition, group dynamics, and

trial process. The variety of jurors, the different evidentiary presentations, and loads of distinct

trial strategies may lead to a different verdict. It is of common knowledge that jurors interpret

evidence based on their own unique experience and knowledge. Since an individual’s

experiential base is in part of a function of one’s sex, race, age, and personality, all of which is a

potential driving factor for convictions. There are a lot of factors that come into play whenever

we talk about the decisions rendered by the court out of a Jury Trial.

Ultimately, there is no archetype that can clearly determine guilt. The criminal justice

system must rely on past decisions handed down by juries. Jury secrecy is also a thing which is

why it is almost impossible to know whether a particular Jury Trial rendered a correct or

incorrect decision. Due to this particular fact, the effectiveness of a Jury Trial has always been

put to the test. According to Forsyth (2010), There have been recent studies about the

effectiveness of this system. However, it is still a given fact that times are constantly changing

15
and its effectiveness must always be put to the test since it’s up to the jurors and the judge to

sentence the accused.

1.7.1. Wrongful Convictions in Jury Trials

Jury trials play a huge constitutional and institutional role deemed necessary and

critical in American Jurisprudence. The service given by juries is the only constitutional

requirement that’s being demanded of the nation’s citizens. They have very important

places and responsibility when chosen as a juror. Which is why they take their job very

seriously as they are presented with evidence at trial and eventually conclude a verdict

that correlates to the narrative presented throughout the span of trial. Recently though, it

was found that the rate of wrongful conviction is a whopping 5% in serious felony and

criminal cases (MacKillop & Vidmar, 2015).

In US.v. Garsson (1923), Judge Learned Hand said, "Our procedure has always

been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted. It is an unreal dream.”

Wrongful convictions are a huge concern of prosecutors and defense lawyers, liberals

and conservatives, lawyers and non-lawyers. This particular phenomenon involves the

accuracy of the jury system and it is of common knowledge that accuracy is the common

goal of everyone. It concerns citizens who are for public safety and law enforcement

because after all who would want an innocent person stuck behind bars and a guilty

man to roam the streets freely.

According to a Harris Poll of Americans (2000), 94% of people who participated

in the survey believed that innocent people are sometimes wrongfully convicted and

such instances happen 13% of the time. It was reported in January 2003 that at least 13

out of the 167 inmates on death row in Illinois, approximately 8% of them were innocent.

16
So just imagine taking somebody’s life from them just because of a wrong conviction

brought about by an unfair trial (Furman, 2003).

There are a lot of extralegal factors that may come into play when we talk about

wrongful convictions. Although the justice system tries its hardest to not have biases, we

still cannot ignore the fact that these elements can potentially influence a decision. In

cases like the Scottsboro boys, George Stinney Jr., and the beating death of Arthur

McDuffie, race is a very particular aspect that one can immediately recognize.

In the case of the Scottsboro boys, they were nine black teenagers falsely accused

of raping two white women aboard a train near Scottsboro, Alabama, in 1931. They were

tested by an all-white jury and was wrongfully sentenced (Encyclopedia of Alabama,

2008). In the case of George Stinney Jr., he was wrongfully sentenced to death at the

tender age of 14 years old for the murder of two white girls in South California. His trial

lasted less than three hours with an all-white jury with not enough evidence and barely

any witness testimonies (Carrico, 2018). The beating death of Arthur McDuffie, a black

man who was beaten to death by white police officers created a huge controversy and

further proved the issue of prejudice and race. Metro-Dade Police Department (MDPD)

signaled McDuffie to pull over but did not comply immediately resulting in an eight

mile chase through the city. He was beaten badly to the point of comma even though he

never resisted arrest and died four days later. The all-white jury who tried the police

officers rendered a verdict of not guilty (Porter et al., 1984).

1.7.2. Accuracy of Jury Trials

The question of “Why should anyone believe that 12 inexperienced people have the

special capacity to decide between serious cases?” always persists whenever people argue

17
about the Jury system’s effectiveness. A number of studies have shown that judges agree

with the jury approximately 80% of the time. More or less than 20% of the time judges

disagree with the jury’s verdict, within those 20%, judges only found 9% of the cases’

verdict unreasonable. Although agreement doesn’t guarantee correctness, because both

the judge or jury can be wrong more than half the time.

The survey reveals that disagreements that exist between the judge and jury are

primarily caused by one or more of the following factors: Issues of evidence, jury

sentiments toward the law, jury sentiments toward the defendant, facts known only by

the judge, and disparity of counsel. Given the facts, statistics still show that most judges

find the jury's verdict reasonable more often than not (Kalven Jr. & Zeisel, 1996; Palmer,

2013; Firth, 2019).

Moreover, researches have shown juries get it right most of the time, despite the

failings of individual jurors. They make the right decisions based on the given set of

evidence, reaching the right verdict. Of course not all of their verdicts are right, same as

the judge they too are not unerring nor infallible, no humans are, but same as the judges,

they do get it right most of the time. Furthermore, a report from the Ministry of Justice of

UK shows that through their 18 months of meticulous research gathering over half a

million cases in England and Wales, shows how fair, efficient, and effective juries are.

Almost two-thirds are convicted more than acquitted in rape. Less than 1% of the cases

they handle fail to reach verdict, showing no evidence of any racial biases (Mendelle,

2010).

1.7.3. Jury Trial Statistics

According to Thomas (2010), juries appear efficient and effective. A jury who is

sworn reaches a verdict by deliberation on 89% of all charges while only 11% of those

18
 are verdicts directed by judges to help the juries. Almost two-thirds (64%) of all charges

presented to them are convicted by juries where only less than 1% are discharged of

sworn juries.

Conviction rates vary substantially based on specific offenses. According to

Thomas (2010) homicide-related offenses has some of the lowest rate of conviction such

as threatening to kill with 36%, manslaughter with 48%, and lastly attempted murder

with 47% but murder 77% and death by dangerous driving 85% are some of the highest

jury conviction rates. Moreover, the likelihood of the jury ruling at least one guilty

verdict changes depending on the number of charges against the defendant. From 40%

with only one charge, the probability of a guilty verdict rises up to 80% with the

defendant having five charges. However, jurors’ actual comprehension of the judge’s

direction was examined. Over half the juror claims that the direction given by the judge

was easy to understand but only 31% of the 797 jurors actually understood the direction

given by the judge in the legal terms. Younger jurors are able to comprehend the legal

instructions more than older jurors. As the age of the juror increases, the ability to

comprehend directions on the law declines. When the instruction was given in written

format, the proportion of jurors who actually understands the legal questions in the case

in the term used by the judge increased from 31% to 48%.

III. Statement of the Problem

The importance of the legal system in the Philippines is to uphold justice and to protect

the rights of every Filipinos. It serves as the peacemaker, in which they respond to the public in

being able to safeguard the welfare of the citizens. They promote social justice and provide for

19
orderly social change. In the Philippines, the holistic perception of law is the integration of the

roles of the Congress in crafting and formulating statutes, the enactment of the Executive of this

letters, and the application and the interpretation of the Judiciary of the Constitution and codes

in place, therein. Although a system of check-and-balance and equitable responsibility of these

three, the role of the Judiciary in upholding the said justice and protecting the fundamental

rights of the citizens cannot be undermined. Therefore, to achieve this, an important foundation

shall be established in how the justice system works. Through the analysis of which type of

judicial system can effectively administer justice, we must first examine the following questions:

1. Which judicial system is more effective in sentencing criminal offenders?

a. Which is speedier and a more efficient system when it comes to

sentencing criminal offenders?

b. Which is less likely to render a wrongful courtroom conviction or

acquittal in handling criminal cases?

IV. Significance of the Study

The independence of a particular nation’s court and its ability to continuously uphold

the rule of law is the most quintessential aspect of any republic established in this world (Wohl,

2017). For thousands of centuries, the judiciary played and is continuously playing a huge role

in society. It is their responsibility to ensure the proper execution of laws, maintaining peace and

order within its people. The judiciary is also faced with the citizens’ struggles ranging from

social values, ideas, politics, and everything in between. They are assigned with the

responsibility of not letting such issues overwhelm or undermine civil society.

20
 At present the Judicial system of the Philippines is very much in action and is currently

working. It is indeed a given fact that there are certain lapses within the judiciary that needs

addressing. Yes, there is no Judicial system in this world that is flawless but there are always

certain ways in order to improve a country’s judicial system. Today, the Philippine courts

function without a jury, meaning the country holds Bench Trials for every single case.

According to Lee (2017), “No court case in the world has a definite ‘ending’ date. The case ends

when it ends.” Which brings us to the first issue that we cannot turn a blind-eye to, how

inarguably slow the court works in order to bring justice to certain cases. It is of common

knowledge that the law seeks no biases. It is for solely the truth and nothing but the truth. The

very essence of this study is to raise a ground for possible reform within the country's judicial

system.

This paper also seeks to answer the question of which system (Judge and Jury or Judge

Alone) is more effective when it comes to sentencing criminal offenders. Alongside this, the

researchers also aim to know which system is speedier and more efficient and is less likely to

render a wrongful courtroom conviction or acquittal in handling criminal cases.

Everyone deserves a fair trial. The law must always be encompassing and it shall

continuously bring peace and order within the nation. This study shall be of great benefit to the

whole country and its citizens. It shall also greatly contribute to the legal system of the

Philippine.

V. Theoretical Framework

In the Philippines, there is an immediate need of having a system where justice is

effectively administered in order to address the grave challenges and inconsistencies afflicted

21
and involved in criminal proceedings in the country, which deeply undermines the possibility

of all citizens equally obtaining protection of their fundamental human rights and cause a loss

of respect and expectations in the role of institutions for the rule of law in the Philippines and

the functioning of the state itself. This research aims to determine which is more effective in

terms of arriving at a case decision quickly and accurately in order to achieve judicial

accountability and efficiency. Upon the attainment of which, this study may lead to further

recommendations of reforming the existing judicial system in the Philippines.

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework

For the analysis of effectivity, the factors to be studied include: (1) speedy trial, (2)

wrongful conviction, (3) wrongful acquittal. These all lead to a formidable system that can be

relied on by the citizens. For one, determining which of the two systems settles a case or dispute

faster without compromising its accuracy entails that the judiciary commits to their

responsibility of safeguarding the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens.

It has been clear in the tradition of the judicial branch to encounter mistrials. For

example, according to the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 2004, where Bench Trial is the

22
only system of Trial, the judicial error rate in the Philippines is 71.77% for capital punishment

cases; meanwhile, there is a 13% error rate reported in murder conviction alone, translating to

more than 200,000 judgements rendered by the Jury (Furman, 2003). Acknowledging this fact,

the question we now aim to focus on is which is less likely to render wrongful judgements by

comparing the judgements made by these two intricate structures. Another important factor in

establishing which is more effective is the duration of the proceedings. According to the study

of Judge Richard Poser, he observed that “the average federal civil jury trial in 1983 lasted 4.48

days, compared to 2.21 days for the average nonjury trial.”However, explanations for this

reality also include that the cases handled by jury systems are more complex, and thus,

necessitates more time (Eisenberg & Clermont, 1996).

23
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali. (2010). The Legal Impediments to the Application of Islamic Family Law in the Philippines,

93–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13602000701308905

Augustyn et al. (2016). Coroner’s jury. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/coroners-jury

Augustyn et al. (2008). Petit Jury. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/petit-jury

Grenig, J. (n.d.). The Civil Jury in the United States. Doi:

https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/ndlr/pdf/issues/92/2/92ndlr365.pdf

Carrico. (2018). Sounding social justice in American opera: race and gender in Stinney: an

American execution. Folk Life, 56(2), 77–92.

COOPER. (2004). Judge and Jury, or Judge Alone. Med. Sci. Law, 44(1). doi: msl.sagepub.com

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES. Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-7/trial-by-jury-in-civil-cases

Criminal Procedure. (1991). Retrieved from

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-10540.html

Firth, A. (2019). Here’s how often trial judges disagree with a jury’s verdict. Retrieved May 30,

2020, from

https://www.judges.org/heres-how-often-trial-judges-disagree-with-a-jurys-verdict/

24
Ford. (1986). The Role of Extralegal Factors in Jury Verdicts. The Justice System Journal, 11(1),

16–39.

Furman. (2003). Wrongful Convictions and the Accuracy of the Criminal Justice System.

Gaskins, C. K. (1986). Felony Case Processing in State Courts, 1968 (pp. 1-12) (U. S. A,

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs). Rockville, Maryland: Justice

Statistics Clearinghouse.

George Stinney Jr.'s Story: 14-year-old boy who was put to death by electric chair for murdering

Betty June Binnicker and Mary Emma Thames was exonerated 70 years later. (2020,

April 22). Retrieved from

https://www.thecriminaljournal.com/electrocuted-at-14-the-story-of-george-stinney-jr/

GOVPH. (1997). The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 199. Retrieved from

http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/phi13930.pdf

Hazard . (1990). The Role of the Legal System in Responses to Public Risk. Daedalus, 119(4),

229–234. doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20025347

Jackson, & Doran. (1995). Judge Without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary System. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Judicial Conference of the United States. (n.d.). Handbook for Trial Jurors Serving in the United

States District Courts. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the United States

Courts. doi: www.ustcourts.gov

25
Kirchengast. (2010). The Criminal Trial in Law and Discourse. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/11500258/The_Criminal_Trial_in_Law_and_Discourse

MAcKILLOP, & VIDMAR. (n.d.). DECISION-MAKING IN THE DARK: HOW PRE-TRIAL

ERRORS CHANGE THE NARRATIVE IN CRIMINAL JURY TRIALS.

CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW, 90(3), 957–980.

Madeo. (n.d.). May 18, 1980: Miami: Community Protests After Officers Acquitted in Beating

Death. Retrieved from

http://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/18?fbclid=IwAR0xwNpjCbym9sdwvbl4fNlbB

AF6lUHAYIzPyRM9J6OqSsNcF2vRrQBFWdM

Mass.gov. (2018). Learn about the history of the jury system. Retrieved from

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/learn-about-the-history-of-the-jury-system

Mauet. (2002). Bench Trials. Litigation, 28(4), 13–19. doi:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/29760300

Mendelle, P. (2010, February 21). Why juries work best | Paul Mendelle. Retrieved May 30,

2020, from

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/juries-work-best-research

Millan. (n.d.). Transformation From Adversarial To Inquisitorial System. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/7281834/Transformationfrom_Adversarialto_Inquisitorial_

System

26
Nedim, U. (2014, January 30). Is it Better to Have a Jury Trial or a Judge-Alone Trial? Retrieved

May 30, 2020, from

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-better-to-have-a-jury-trial-or-a-jud

ge-alone-trial/

Palmer, B. (2013, July 18). How Accurate Are Juries? Are They Worth the Trouble? Retrieved

May 30, 2020, from

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-how-accurate-are-juries.ht

ml

People v. Larranaga. (2006). Supreme Court. Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Bank

Schonrock et al. (2019). How Does a Grand Jury Work? Retrieved from

criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

The American Jury, by Harry Kalven, Jr. and Hans Zeisel, 24 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 158 (1967),

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol24/iss1/18

The National Judicial College . (n.d.). Why Jury Trials are Important to a Democratic Society.

doi: www.judges.org

The Scottsboro Boys. (2017, March 15). Retrieved from

https://nmaahc.si.edu/blog/scottsboro-boys

27
Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? (pp. 1-87) (United Kingdom, Ministry of Justice, Office for

Criminal Justice Reform,the judiciary, Attorney General’s Office and Home Office).

London, United Kingdom: Crown.

Travis, A. (2010, February 17). The verdict on juries: Fair, effective and efficient. Retrieved May

30, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/17/juries-fairness-research

Whittemore, & Ogloff. (1995). Factors That Influence Jury Decision Making . Law and Human

Behavior, 19(3), 283–303.

28
Rubric [Research Article/Proposal Introduction] | Capstone Requirement

Date of submission: May 30, 2020

Superior Adequate Minimal Inadequate

(20-17 points) (16-12 points) (11-9 points) (8-1 point/s)
Fairly Lacks proper
Context is not
Well-established context well-established contextualization.
well-established and
based on facts that are context that has some There is no
provides a few (less
Contextualization supported with ten (10) evidence to support substantive
than five [5])
(Background) or more strong sources the topic, but the evidence to
sources of weak
of evidence specific to evidence is a mixture support the topic.
evidence to support
the topic of strong and weak
the topic
sources
Comprehensive Superficial review of Superficial review
Comprehensive review
review of the the literature that of the literature
of the literature using
literature using does not describe that is poorly
quality evidence and
quality evidence but research findings; organized and
specifically analyzes
does not adequately relies heavily on a lacks credibility
research conducted by
analyze research few studies and uses based on the level
Literature review describing studies and
findings; simply poor-quality of evidence and
findings that support
reports on the resources for resources
the thesis and focused
literature. A information presented. Less
problem. A minimum of
minimum of eight (8) gathering. Less than than five (5)
ten (10) quality
quality references eight (8) quality references
references included
included references included included
Fairly
Very clearly identified well-established Research gap is not Lacks a properly
research gap. Very research gap. Fairly clearly identified. identified research
Problem clearly posed problem well posed problem Problem statement gap. Evidence
statement statement, and statement that is not clearly posed presented does
(Research gap) supported with provides evidence, and/or lacks quality not support the
high-quality (strong) but the evidence is evidence to support thesis or problem
evidence not as strong as it the problem statement
could be 
Lacks a purpose
Purpose of the
Very clearly stated Fairly well-stated of the study
study is not clearly
Purpose of the purpose of the study purpose of the study
stated and/or does
statement or does
that connects very well that connects well to not pertain to the
study not connect well to
to the context the context context
(Research the context
(background) and the (background) and the (background)
(background) and
questions) statement of the statement of the
the statement of the
and/or the
problem problem statement of the
problem
problem
Fairly written paper Poorly written
that lacks clarity; paper that lacks
Well-written paper
Very well-written paper has poor transition organization.
with few
with few grammatical sentences. There are There are multiple
grammatical errors.
errors. Adheres to all the several grammatical grammatical
Writing Adheres to most of
writing-format errors. Adheres to errors. Fails to
mechanics the writing-format
requirements as most of the adhere to the
requirements as
presented in the writing-format writing format
presented in the
guidelines requirements as requirements as
guidelines
presented in the presented in the
guidelines guidelines

Total Points: _____ (out of 100)

 Academic Writing (Elective) | Second Semester, AY 2019-2020
Shape. Shaping a successful paper: Organization, structure, and language features
(Exploring the organization, structure, and language features of a research article)

Names:
ARRIOLA, Adrian James M.
LAURENTE, Emmanuel Cesar A.
Section: ELE A3-2
Date of submission: May 30, 2020

Final-Descriptors (GROUP Task [based on your research group])

Instructions: Examine your own research article/proposal Introduction and complete the
following tables:
Section: Introduction

Question(s) Description/Descriptor(s)

How is the introduction organized? What is The researchers’ introduction started by

each paragraph about? giving meaning to the judicial system

wherein the researchers compared the

difference of judicial system the Philippines

and other countries have. The study

highlights which is more likely to render

correct and faster verdict. In Related

Literature it gave definition to different

laws that contributed to our modern day

judicial system. It also states here the two

types of trial where it has the research’s

focus, bench and jury trial. The review

further shows statistics wherein researches

provide evidence on whether the bench or

jury is the most effective and accurate trial

for criminal cases. Number of research

displays evidence on which one is better

than the other. Which is why in statement of

the problem the researchers introduced the

questions that have long been in question.

Which is better especially in our judicial

system. Which is more reliable, which is

more dependable, which is faster, which is

more accurate than the other. Questions that

need answers. That’s why in significance of

the study it answers why these questions

are important, why this research is relevant

especially to our judicial system that has

long been in need of remedy especially

when it comes to speed of trials. Theoretical

framework introduces what researchers

think the answer is to the question based on

the data they discover. Furthermore in the

theoretical framework where all facts are

acknowledged it proves here that the

judicial system indeed is in need of

reconstruction having 71.77% judicial error

rate wherein bench trial is the only system

 of trial, jury trial could be the answer to

having effective judgement proceeding

having only 13% error rate according to the

Jury (Furman, 2003) is much more accurate

than 71.77% for the bench trial in the

Philippines’ Judicial System.

What verb tenses are mostly used in each The researchers mostly used past tense

paragraph? Why? verbs. On the Background of the Study,

present tense and past tense are used.

Present tense is used to describe and give

definition to the current situation of the

topic. Past tense is used because we cited

and based some of the descriptions on

previous researches to establish more facts

on the topic.

For Review of Related Literature past tense

is mostly used due to the fact that our

statements come from previous studies

which we used to expound and prove

points.

On Statement of the problem, present tense

verbs are mostly used because we’re

describing issues that the research will

 address and showing the relevance of the

problems to the topic.

For Significance of the Study Past tense

verbs are used to define and state reasons

on why we are conducting this research,

there are also previous researches that are

cited to show more proof on why we should

exert efforts for this study.

For Theoretical framework past tense verbs

are mostly used because our answers on the

problems our researchers are solving are

also based on previous research that has

relevant answers to the problems we’re

tackling.

What reporting verbs are used in the Words such as “according to” and “stated”

introduction? When are they used? are frequently used for citing and quoting

past researchers’ claims that are relevant to

our study. The word “in” is also often used

to show and signify that what we are

stating came from sources that show

relevance to the topic.

Are citations used? If so, how are they Citations are used. We’ve cited different

included? studies, from books, journals, websites,

Criminal Cases, and even Government

researches. The studies we’ve cited are

mainly for Related Literature and

Background of the Study although there are

some that we used for the Significance of

the study and Theoretical Framework to

further support, to clarify and expound our

statements.

All sources are cited properly. In-text

citations are present, direct quotation from

sources are written with quotation marks

and all other sources that are used are

within the bibliography alphabetically

arranged and in APA format.

Comments