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…)
Newspeg: “(Slain journalist) Rubylita Garcia’s 28-year-old son, Tristan, earlier on Monday told the Inquirer that on the way to the hospital his mother told him Villanueva could be behind the attack. “But (PNP spokesperson) Sindac told reporters at the PNP headquarters at Camp Crame that Villanueva was merely “being alluded to” since the victim did not tell her relatives before she died whether the person behind the attack was ‘a former or incumbent police chief of Tanza.’ ” (from the Inquirer) “Lawman wanted me dead, said dying reporter. Gasping for her last breath, journalist Rubylita Garcia identified the police chief of Tanza town in Cavite province as the “brains” behind her shooting, the National Press Club of the Philippines (NPC) said on Monday. “In a statement, NPC President Benny Antiporda, who is also the owner of the tabloid Remate where Garcia wrote, said the victim managed to tell her son just minutes after she was shot that Supt. Conrado Villanueva was the only person who wanted her dead. “ ‘While we welcome the PNP’s [Philippine National Police] immediate decision to form a special investigation task group [SITG] that would directly report to Cavite provincial police director, Senior Supt. Joselito Esquivel, the NPC remains doubtful as to whether justice would be rendered to Rubie in the swiftest time possible—the main purpose for the formation of the SITG,’ Antiporda said.” (from Manila Times) *** *** ***
Rubylita Garcia’s pronouncements given to her son is a form of “dying declaration” admissible in evidence not just as part of the narration of the witness (the son) but as to facts contained in the declarant’s statement itself. It is sufficient to give due course to an affidavit-complaint by the witness and for the filing of a criminal complaint against the subject of the dying declaration, PNP Supt. Conrado Villanueva.
Colleagues of Villanueva, such as PNP spokesperson Sindac and other PNP officers, have a conflict of interest with the person of interest (Villanueva) because of their fraternal relationship with him. Their behavior in the past few days shows this.
Allowing the PNP officers to take charge of the investigation of this case is like allowing the da-barkads (barkada; buddies) of Villanueva to be in charge of the evidence-gathering — it’s like commissioning a paint job.
Malacañang should know better — it’s the one chance it could redeem itself.
