Noemi Lardizabal-Dado momblogger gives updates, and links background materials, on the Janet Lim-Napoles affidavit at twitter.com/momblogger
Watch Joseph Morong’s in-depth report on the benefits of being admitted to the Witness Protection Program, with scenario-building on the logical and likely consequences of Janet Lim-Napoles being admitted to the WPP — on GMA 7 News Channel 11 on free tv, Channel 24 on cable tv, State of the Nation show at 9pm — tonight! Abangan! From Joseph Morong’s twitter account at twitter.com/joseph_morong: ” What are the perks for being a state witness? For starters, Napoles may be freed from jail. More on @stateofdnation GMA NewsTV ch.11/9pm” … “Napoles can change name, have a house and even go abroad as state witness-lawyer. More on @stateofdnation GMA NewsTV ch.11/9pm “
Affidavit of Janet Lim-Napoles, evidentiary purposes, guide for reporters:
The DOJ secretary said Janet Lim-Napoles told all, in a five-hour meeting in one full pack of yellow pad paper, for fear she would not live to tell the tale post-surgery and onwards. Fortunately, her surgery was successful and her sworn Q&A/ sworn statement/ sinumpaang salaysay would now be reduced into a duly executed affidavit.
This affidavit, detailing how ten billion pesos in public funds were allegedly siphoned by her (at 30% commission) and by Senators Enrile, Estrada, Revilla and others (at 70% portion of their pork allocation) and staffmembers and government bureaucrats (in tens to hundreds of millions of pesos), will supposedly remove any “motivation” on the part of those implicated to silence her by whacking her, to use a mafiosi term.
Would an affidavit be admissible in evidence if, god forbid, the affiant is no longer available?
Alas, no. An affidavit introduced without the affiant presented in court for direct and cross examination is a form of hearsay and is considered a “mere scrap of paper” — a phrase trial judges love to use as they roll the rr’s when they say “scrrapp of paper”. The witness is not home (not “safe”) until after his/her cross-examination is terminated. How many crosses? As many as the number of accused.
For the “star witness”, how long could this take? The trial would take more than five years.
If this case is not expected to reach trial within the year, a remedy is to perpetuate her testimony by way of a deposition in which all the expected parties would be given a chance to cross the deponent. That is admissible in evidence in its entirety with or without the deponent/ witness being presented in court.
By the way, extra tips given to the handling lawyer in cases such as this include: Use your own vehicle, do not use the car assigned to the witness, and always bear in mind that a bullet-proof vehicle is like cardboard to RPGs. Like crepe paper. Or onion-skin paper.
(part one, just filling gaps here and there in the coverage by the mainstream media, to be continued…)