The Criminal Code of the Philippines. 433
THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. BY W. F. THE criminal code of the Philippines re mains comparatively unaltered, crimes, their definitions and penalties being the same as during the days of Spanish supremacy. The criminal code of procedure has been modified by a general military order, issued by General Otis when Military Governor, which order, as far as it went, introduced rad ical changes in the procedure heretofore pre vailing, by casting the burden of proof in criminal cases upon the government. Up to May 15, 1900, the date on which said order took effect, the burden was upon the de fendant charged with crime to prove himself innocent. Other primary principles of our criminal law were interjected in the body of the ¡Spanish law of criminal procedure, as, for example, permitting the accused to testify in his own behalf, exempting him from giving testimony in his own case, unless voluntarily, confronting him with the witnesses against him, and providing for a preliminary exam ination of parties charged with crime. Whether the introduction of these humane provisions of our criminal law are on the whole beneficial at the present time, admits of serious doubt. The preamble to the order referred to states that to safeguard the rights of the individual and promote justice these principles shall prevail, etc., but under existing conditions, and the peculiar state of society, and especially the character of the people and their previous training, it is doubt ful whether substantial justice is promoted by the change. One thing is certain, that crime is not so effectually detected and punished as under the old system. A change in the procedure, however, must have been made sooner or later, and during the transition stage difficulties must be expected, which ex perience alone can properly adjust. In a very large proportion of criminal
NORRIS. cases the accused has confessed his guilt be fore a justice of the peace in the preliminary examination, generally with the accompani ment of some circumstance of an extenuat ing character. In almost every instance, how ever, when he appears before the Court of First Instance and an American judge, he denies everything, and when confronted with his admission before the justice denies that he ever made it, or states that he was com pelled to confess, urging sometimes that tor ture was inflicted, including the popular pun ishment of the water cure, or perhaps the excuse will be that he was frightened so that he did not realize what he was saying, or any other falsehood that he may deem best cal culated to secure his acquittal. The Filipino witness is not, in my opinion, a skillful liar. I am aware that in this opinion I differ from the majority of Americans and Europeans conversant with the native char acter. The native has one marked advan tage: he is a liar without conscience, a nat ural born falsifier, one who prefers false hood to truth, or at least to whom truth or falsehood are matters of indifference, and who regards a successful lie as a piece of commendable diplomacy. To pronounce the native a skillful liar, however, is an unde served compliment. He takes refuge in a lie as a hunted squirrel takes to a tree or a rabbit to the nearest thicket, and owing to the dialect in which he speaks, and the fact that what he says comes to the court strained through two languages, it is more difficult to detect the falsehood than in the case of the lie uttered in the English language. The very insensibility of the native to the vice of falsehood makes detection the more difficult; with the lying Filipino witness there is no confusion of face or flush of shame, no qualm of conscfence to cause disquietude at telling
