Both the prosecution and the defense have presented their
respective testimonial and documentary evidence. It is expected that the
closing arguments will mainly be focused on the following:
The prosecution will argue that it has proven its cases by
presenting and offering evidence which will show that the impeached official
failed to declare in his SALN his peso and dollar deposits, among others. It
will also show in closing that it has been able to prove the alleged partiality
and interest of the impeached official in those cases before the highest court
in the land where he sits as Chief Justice. It will rely on documents issued by
the government, and which shall be asked to be considered as they enjoy the
presumption of regularity in the issuance thereof.
The defense on the other hand will disprove the accusations
by emphasizing that the impeached official was in good faith and has relied on
the language and intent of the laws specifically pertaining to the dollar
deposits. It will show that the impeached official is under no obligation to
declared any property or money which in the first place does not belong to him
and thus, may not be deemed to be an asset or a liability.
What is the bottomline? What are the issues?
At the outset, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, such as the
issuance of certifications or documents, cannot by itself overcome the presumption
of innocence. Consequently, reliance on documents which have not been testified
to by the issuer may be fatal to the party concerned. The best move would still
be to summon the person responsible for the documents and allow him to testify
on the same based on his personal knowledge. Failing in which will not support
a “finding of fact”. Hence, this issue will confront the court as it pass upon
the evidence presented by the Ombudsman. It may be noted that it came another
source other than her office. The court may consider the same as evidence per
se or disregard it as being hearsay.
For the impeached
official, good faith has been offered as a defense and specifically on
questions of law. He relied on the confidentiality of the dollar deposits and
thus, he did not find it necessary to declare the same in his SALN.
The state of mind
becomes relevant – that is the contention. But is it true when it comes to
special laws? Meaning, when a special law has been enacted, what was the intent
of the framers thereof? Is it their intention to give discretion to a person to
interpret the special law his way? Or is it more the mandate of the law, to
follow the same to the letter without any room for doubt or misinterpretation?
The latter question is to be answered in the affirmative and those learned in
law would not have it any other way – being very basic.
Once again, the court
is confronted with these questions and issues.
Again, what do you
think?
