Based on live tweets from Rappler reporter Bea Cupin, before prosecution witness NBI agent Benuo was excused (upon termination of his cross), the prosecution asked that the accused Janet Lim-Napoles be brought to court so that the witness could identify her as the “tall lady” who heaped invectives on them when they were on the premises.
Guide for reporters: Under the rights of the accused in the revised rules of criminal procedure, the accused may waive his/ her presence at his/her own trial, except when he/she is ordered by the court to be present for purposes of identification.
So… at the end of this hearing, if the prosecution lawyer is not forgetful, it will move for the issuance of a court order for the accused to be produced in court for purposes of identification. When such court order is issued, it will then have to recall prosecution witness Benuo to identify said accused as part of his testimony.
Lawyers have many experiences about witnesses identifying and tagging persons.
What is your experience?
in a special civil action (as respondent’s counsel in an injunction case) , a person who was part of the testimony of our witness was present in court. But obviously he was not an accused, and he was not a party to the case… but… he instigated the action. Anyway. so my colleagues and i asked the witness whether or not the person was in court; yes… then asked him to point at him. Then we asked the person to stand up and to state his name. Then…
We marked him as an exhibit. For the record. Exhibit G.
Anyway.
That would not be necessary here. The witness would just point at the accused and she will be asked to state her name.
When the prosecution at the end of this hearing moves for such court order (to compel attendance of the accused), counsel for the accused can either:
a) interpose no objection; b) object, then state the ground;
c) stipulate that she was the person referred to by the witness in his testimony.
If counsel for the accused stipulates, then the accused would not have to be produced in court. If she objects, she could cite grounds and there would be argumentation etc. etc.
People vs. Janet Lim Napoles, et al for for serious illegal detention: As of posting time, the first prosecution witness, the NBI agent who came to the aid of BenHur Luy, is being crossed on the following: whether or not he was armed with a search warrant when he entered the premises; and accused’s lawyer tried to show a CCTV footage of BenHur Luy walking on the corridor etc but was not not allowed by the Court at this time.
The prosecution needs to prove that: BenHur Luy was detained or deprived of liberty, for more than five days by the accused, to constitute the crime of serious illegal detention. Based on jurisprudence, serious illegal detention is not limited to locking up a person but includes all forms of deprivation of liberty, as follows:
“Revised Penal Code. Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another or in any manner deprive him of his liberty shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
“1.If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
“2.If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
“3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
”4.If the person kidnapped shall be a minor, female, or public officer.
“The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the offense.”
“Art. 267 was taken from… the old Penal Code. The Spanish version uses the terms “lock up” (“encerrar”) rather than “kidnap” (“sequestrar or raprar). Locking up is included in the broader term of detention, which refers not only to the placing of a person in an enclosure which he cannot leave, but also to any other deprivation of liberty which does not involve locking up” (Justice Ramon Aquino, Revised Penal Code, citing Groizard and Cuello Calon cited in Marasigan and Robles, CA 55 O.G. 8297)
News peg: Janet Lim-Napoles has been subpoenaed by the Senate to attend a Senate hearing (presumably by the Blue Ribbon Commitee) this Thursday Sept. 26, 2013; and for this purpose, a letter has been sent to the Ombudsman who is conducting a preliminary investigation of the complaint for plunder filed by the DOJ based on evidence on the so-called P10 billion pork barrel scam.
Can accused Janet Lim-Napoles (accused in the serious illegal detention case and respondent in the plunder case) attend the Senate hearing this Thursday, Sept. 26? No. Nope. Nopey. Not without a court order. She is under detention by order of the RTC Makati. Only the RTC Makati can order her removed from her place of detention. You can try serving the subpoena on her guards but it will not be honored. Don’t try citing the guards for contempt because it is the RTC Makati which has jurisdiction over her person.
