“No Sacred Cows and No One is Above the Law.”

Today’s outcome was not what Selgado and his legal team were anticipating.  On the lower end of the punishment is a six-year prison term that has been established as precedence. On the upper end is life in prison for abetment to commit murder.  Selgado’s ten-year sentence takes into consideration the gravity of the crime he has committed.  The judge also considered Selgado’s contribution to the criminal justice system through his legal practice.  But Justice Pilgrim was also clear in pointing out that in the criminal justice system, there are no sacred cows and no one is above the law.  We spoke with defense attorney Arthur Saldivar following the sentencing.

 

Arthur Saldivar, Attorney-at-law

“It marks the end of the first phase of Mr. Selgado’s struggle to vindicate himself.  Mr. Selgado is certainly committed in his belief that what has transpired is not in keeping what was required legally and, as a result of that, has endeavored to appeal.  So we are at that stage now where we are contemplating the appeal because there is certainly much to consider in terms of the process.  That said, given what the learned justice has articulated, I think what is most appropriate for the public to consider is that he is making it clear from his belief and perspective that no one is above the law and that what applies to one must apply to all.  That is a message that I think should go far and wide, from the streets to parliament. But, suffice it to say, we are now here at and of this phase for Mr. Selgado.  We look forward to the other challenge and we look forward to a different outcome.”

 

Isani Cayetano

“Did you expect a sentence of ten years or were you perhaps considering that it would be on a lower side?”

 

Arthur Saldivar

“I have no expectations.  We fight, advocate and whatever comes we deal with when it comes.”

 

Reporter

“How do you feel about the fact that the judge did not consider that the health of your client should not have factored into his sentence?”

 

Arthur Saldivar

“I don’t know that he did not consider it.  The mere fact that he mentions it is consideration.  The weight that he gave to it may not have been what, you know, would have been expected.  But again, he’s guided by precedent.  What we must bear in mind is that once conviction has been arrived at, there are certain parameters that the court must operate within in coming to its decision.”