In the eyes of the public, the failure to present a witness on account of irrelevancy could be the most embarrassing moment for the prosecution so far.
On the part of the court itself, its judicious firmness is a manifestation of brilliance, competence and impartiality. Thanks to our Honorable Manong Johnny.
But for the defense, they know that the fight is far from over. In fact, they had to make several manifestations, objections and avail of several other trial techniques for the purpose of insuring that in the end no evidence would be admissible when the time comes for their formal offer.
But come to think of it, what happened was actually favorable to the prosecution. Why?
It means that they may and at this time they should have re-examined their litigation strategy.
Article 3 is difficult to prove unless there are pieces of evidence which would directly show culpability or the commission of those acts alleged in the Articles of Impeachment. Otherwise, the prosecution must rely on intentions, motives, circumstances etc that, collectively, will lead the evidence to prove an impeachable offense.
Unfortunately though, the court could not find in the proferred testimonial evidence any link to Article 3. Hence, the prosecution is in a tight situation since intentions, motives, among others, have been declared to be irrelevant. The question now is "how will the prosecution present these matters without amending the Articles of Impeachment?"
Sent from my BlackBerry®
