These days, when the entire judicial system, it seems, is under attack, it?s good to hear that the courts can still come up with verdicts against the rich, powerful and politically connected. And while a Makati court ?only? found former Batangas Gov. Jose Antonio Leviste guilty of the lesser charge of homicide for the killing of his long-time aide and friend Rafael de las Alas two years ago, the decision should encourage those who have less in life and who should rightly get more from our admittedly shaky legal system.

It is a sign of the times that the family of De las Alas expressed genuine surprise when the verdict was handed down yesterday by Judge Elmo Alameda of Branch 150 of the Makati Regional Trial Court. ?We did not expect this,? said a tearful Dinna de las Alas, a daughter of the victim, at the sentencing. ?We had no idea [the verdict would go their way].?

Indeed, while it appeared to many that the killing of De las Alas a little over two years ago inside the office of Leviste in the latter?s LPL Tower in Makati was an open-and-shut case, nobody would really bet on a conviction. This is the Philippines, after all, and stranger things have happened in our courts?especially of late.

In fact, just as the De las Alas family and the government prosecution team that worked for the conviction of Leviste were rejoicing, the US-based Heritage Foundation was condemning the Philippine judicial system in its just-released 2009 Index of Economic Freedom.

?[Philippine] judges are nominally independent, but some have been appointed strictly for political reasons and are corrupt. Organized crime is a strong impediment to the administration of justice, and delays and uncertainty concern investors,? the conservative US think tank said in a report accompanying the Index. ?A culture of corruption is long-standing. Enforcement of anti-corruption laws is inconsistent, and the public perception of judicial, executive, and legislative corruption remains high.?

The report placed the Philippines at 104th place in economic freedom, with a score of 56.8 percent overall, slightly below the world average. The Index?s top scorers were Hong Kong with 90, followed by Singapore (87.1), Australia (82.6), Ireland (82.2), New Zealand (82), United States (80.7), Canada (80.5), Denmark (80), Switzerland (79.4), and the United Kingdom (79.0).

And it is also noteworthy that a team of government prosecutors led by Emmanuel Velasco, which was ranged against pricey white-shoe lawyers hired by Leviste, won the conviction. The success of the prosecuting team in the sensational Leviste case is certain to perk up a prosecutorial service battered, bruised and suspended in connection with the ?Alabang Boys? drug scandal.

Even if Judge Alameda decided that Leviste was guilty of homicide, instead of the murder charge filed by Velasco and his colleagues, the prosecutors still ?concurred with the result,? as they say over at the Supreme Court.

?We?re happy even if the murder charge we filed against Leviste was downgraded to homicide. At least, the court saw that the shooting of De las Alas was not an act of self-defense [as Leviste?s lawyers had argued],? Velasco said.

Of course, Leviste can?t be expected to be glad about the outcome. The former Batangas governor, who was once married to Senator Loren Legarda and who owns expensive real estate in Makati and elsewhere, will serve six to 12 years in the Big House in Muntinlupa on the lesser charge.

Leviste said he would pray for the prosecutors who persecuted him. The rest of us might want to pray for every branch of the judiciary?not just the prosecutors, but also the judges and justices of the higher courts, as well.

* * *

Alameda?s ruling in the Leviste case was marked by a judicial clear-mindedness and an even-handedness that seem to be so rare these days. Refusing to go one extreme by throwing the book at the ex-governor through a murder conviction, the judge said the prosecution failed to prove that the killing of De las Alas was premeditated and involved treachery?important factors in establishing that murder had indeed been committed.

The judge gave credence to investigators? findings that Leviste pulled a gun on his friend at the height of a heated argument in the former governor?s office, something that smacked of a spur-of-the-moment decision by the accused. A murder conviction, which carries heavier penalties of up to life in prison, would certainly have made the professional anti-crime and human-rights groups that converged on the case very happy.

On the other hand, Alameda refused to accept Leviste?s arguments that he had shot De las Alas in self-defense and to acquit the wealthy and powerful ex-governor, whom they fondly call ?Kambal? in Batangas. The judge noted, and not without some restrained judicial irony, that five shots to the head of an unarmed man did not in any way constitute self-defense, never mind if he was in danger of being attacked by the victim.

Looking forward, it is logical to expect that Alameda?s star will rise in the judicial firmament with his verdict on the Leviste case. After all, less even-handed and perspicacious members of the bench (particularly those who merely chose to play to the lynch mobs) have gone a lot further in their careers on the coattails of less important cases.

Still, while it is normal for prosecutors, judges and justices to aspire for ever-higher positions in the judiciary, perhaps Alameda should resist the temptation. In a perfect world, after all, judges?and everyone else?should not expect rewards for doing their job, or even for doing it well.

Of course, the judiciary needs heroes right now, or at least people that we all can believe in?so maybe Alameda, Velasco and all the other members of the judiciary who worked on the Leviste case require at least official acknowledgment of their good work. That isn?t too hard to come by.

But it?s good to know that justice? the old-fashioned, even-handed kind? still exists in this country. It may be a fragile existence, but it?s there, as the verdict in the Leviste case proves.