The Heart of the Presidency; still not disputed

renoir2.jpg

 

 

“The Judgment of Paris” , “a plaster relief of a subject also portrayed by Renoir in paint”, source: http://www.bluffton.edu

Assuming that what the Executive Secretary said 30 minutes ago was true, that the President did order a discreet “investigation” of the alleged 200-million- peso bribe offer, and that he asked Finance Secretary Gary Teves, Trade Secretary Favila, and Deputy Executive Secretary Gaite, to discreetly investigate the bribe offer, and that supposedly the three came up with the conclusion that: it was uncorroborated, what kind of corroboration were they looking for anyway? It was a bribe offer. Offer. Largely testimonial.

The act of Romy Neri calling up the President was a form of res gestae.

Res gestae refer to those declarations made in the aftermath of a startling occurrence. The res gestae rule, falling under the title “exceptions to the hearsay rule”, allow the courts to give considerable evidentiary value to res gestae statements.

“Rules of Court. Rule 130. Sec. 42.Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. (36a)”.

“Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or after the commission of the crime. (People v. Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. No. 124676, 20 May 1998, 290 SCRA 257, 271-272.) Such statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. (Ibid) The rule in res gestae applies when the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with the following requisites: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances. (Ibid).” (from chanrobles.com)

Clearly, Romy Neri’s statement given to the President is: 1)in the aftermath of a startling occurrence; 2) a sponantaneous utterance inspired by the shock caused by the startling event 3)made before Romy Neri had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood.

Further, the testimony of Romy Neri on the meeting between him and Ben Abalos can be corroborated by at least two of his (Romy Neri’s) staffmembers: right after the incident (“Sec, may 200 ka dito”), he told them, “we better be careful with this project/ contract.” Another res gestae. Those staffmembers and other people around him when the incident occurred could testify as to contemporaneous events, or what Romy Neri said or did right after the incident occurred. All res gestae. Those are corroborative evidence.

Between Romy Neri’s testimony that can be corroborated, a statement that is res gestae, and therefore given much weight by the courts, and the general denial of Comelec chair Ben Abalos, didn’t the President or her so-called “investigators” believe the spontaneous, unvarnished res gestae of Romy Neri?

Didn’t they even ask the President in the first place:By the way, Ma’am, what’s the Comelec chair doing with this broadband contract anyway? Why are you letting him facilitate it? It’s already January, February, elections are in a few months, why is he running around peddling the contract? Ma’am? Hello?”

If indeed it was true that the President did something about Romy Neri’s report to her of the bribe offer and that she ordered a discreet investigation.

The statements of the President and Ed Ermita on the supposed invvestigation are, however, uncorroborated. (didn’t the President bother to ask any of her lawyers considering this involved the investigation of a bribe offer?) Not disputed by the President. The President has to come out explain exactly why she let the Comelec chair run around on the broadband contract with just a few months before elections. It’s you , Ma’am. (i know some of the senators are not able to bring it home yet, that this is not just about Ben Abalos and Joey de Venecia, that this goes right at the heart of the presidency, but they’ll catch on in a little while.)

Yehey! Live Media coverage granted!

marsminerva.jpg

 

“The Combat of Mars and Minerva” by Jacques Louis David from abcgallery.com

 

The Supreme Court saved the day for posterity and world history. ABS-CBN news reported at 5:47 pm today that the Supreme Court has granted the petition for a live media coverage.

According to abs-cbnnews.com, the Supreme Court has allowed one video camera to be operated only by Supreme Court personnel to be positioned at a designated area, and the camera would focus only on the court personnel reading the decision.

Had the Supreme Court not acted on this with dispatch, we would have lost any optical documentation of the promulgation and the world would think that the Courts in this country are hiding something with the continued refusal (now overturned) to allow video documentation of its disposition of the case.

One video camera “equalizes” the kind of images that all the television networks would have. (not good for free enterprise; but well…)

Can I just make one teeny-weeny suggestion? Even as the camera is focused only on the court personnel reading the decision, maybe it would be visually more complete if the cameraman would use a long shot instead of a tight shot of the court personnel; I don’t think the court personnel’s hair or back of his/her head, no matter how beautiful, and I’m sure it’s beautiful, , would have documentation value. So, maybe a long shot would contain more information , and therefore more documentation value, than a tight shot of the face or hair of the court personnel. Also, in all the hearings in this case, the court camera had been positioned in one corner after the justices’ bench, to their right. That’s a good position, so maybe for consistency’s sake, that could be maintained.

Maraming salamat po. Ako ay lubos na gumagalang.