As we watch the Impeachment Trial with so much awe
and genuine admiration for the Senator-Judges, the exact opposite seems to be
the general public perception insofar as the prosecution and particularly the
defense is concerned. Each party outdoing and outsmarting each other, and all
appearing to be preventing evidence from being presented. The latter situation
or scenario is understandable for non-lawyers considering that most of the
objections could not be understood or may just be too vague as to be
comprehended by a layman. More so when later on the objection is overruled and
the witness is allowed to answer. The safest move for a party is to object, and
when a question propounded is allowed to be answered, or to have such objection
noted to be a continuous one, during cross-examination, the witness could be
questioned further on the matter, particularly so if the answer is a bit
damaging. The witness’ credibility has to be destroyed by making it appear to
the court that he or she is lying.
We have witnessed during the past weeks a very
different presentation of testimonial evidence. Why? It is highly unusual and
too dangerous to present a witness which you know would not be testifying in a
manner that will support the theory of your case or defense. Here, we have seen
a witnesses declared as hostile, not necessarily in a sense combatively an enemy,
which will enable the examining party to ask leading questions as if the
witness is on cross-examination, although he or she was being presented on
direct-examination.
The case of the Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales is a
good example where you have an intelligent and learned in the law witness being
declared a hostile witness. True enough, she presented documents which have yet
to be appreciated by the court – meaning – whether such supposedly documentary
evidence could be considered as such evidence and serve as a basis in arriving
at a decision. On the face of the testimony and the documents presented, they
may look damaging enough against the other party. But both evidence have to be
analyzed and examined carefully, and a careful study of the laws involved must
be made to ascertain whether the same are applicable or not. This part of the
decision-making is admittedly crucial. What is the point in presenting her? The
defense has in mind to dispel the alleged news or rumor that the Chief Justice
has dollar accounts containing 10 to 12 million dollars in deposit. By
presenting the Ombudsman, whose testimony would be based on records culled from
other sources anyway and therefore – technically she has no personal knowledge
as to the truthfulness of the contents thereof, the defense is laying down the
predicate, or the premise upon which the next witness can testify on. Others
contend that the Ombudsman has in her possession public documents, or official
government communications which enjoy a presumption of regularity and a certain
degree of truth. It is the position of the defense that this may be allowed as
long as the manner by which they were obtained and thereafter disclosed would
not violate existing laws or any order of the court. This is among the issues
which the court is confronted with when it decides the case.
On another point, we have also seen a situation
where a witness has made an opening statement, which in this jurisdiction – the
Philippines – such privilege is not part of the rules of court except when a
court allows the party to present oral arguments which are usually done by the
lawyers or counsels. In this case, it is the Chief Justice of the Philippines
who has been given such opportunity to make a lengthy statement, and under such
circumstances, the other party was actually not allowed to make any objection
or even a reaction. Yes, there were manifestations or objections, but all those
were merely noted.
The question now is – are we seeing things or merely
dreaming – where such privilege is given just because he is a Chief Justice,
and had it been an ordinary person, it would be a different story?
We have before us a presiding senator-judge who is
competent, intelligent, learned and obviously impartial. With his long of
experience as a very successful lawyer and a legislator, he would certainly not
do anything which will tarnish and destroy lifetime accomplishments and
reputation. This is his moment, his crowning glory, so to state. Therefore, he
allowed the Chief Justice to make such statement under certain conditions –
that the other party will be allowed to cross-examine him on any matter which
the Chief Justice has stated.
Fair enough indeed.
Fair enough indeed.
But of course, what happened next is truly a
different kind of story. This means that we may never see the day where the
Chief Justice is being grilled on cross-examination by an equally competent and
learned lawyer of the prosecution. That was the first impression, and so today,
let us see what will happen since the defense has promised that the Chief
Justice will testify despite his condition.
