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 for serious illegal detention. News peg: DZMM reported that the accused filed an urgent “Motion for a Bill of Particulars” in this case at 4pm today.
The following are the pertinent provisions on the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on this:
“Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea. Section 9. Bill of particulars. — The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired. (10a)
“Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution. — Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any written statement given by the complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case and which are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies. (11a)
“Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
“ (a)The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effective renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose;
“ (b)There exists a prejudicial question; and
“(c)A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. (12a)”
A motion for a bill of particulars is filed by an accused who thinks that the Information (formal charge) against him/her is too general. In other words, the accused wants to find out from the prosecution: What overt acts in detail are you charging me with and what evidence do you have against me? This is based on the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him/her, or to be informed of the particularities of the overt acts he/she is accused to have committed.
The arraignment is on Sept. 9; if the Court grants the urgent “Motion for a Bill of Particulars” before Sept. 9, the prosecution must file the bill of particulars asked for on or before Sept. 9. If the Court does not act promptly on the motion or, if the Court grants and the prosecution complies, but the accused is not satisfied with the bill of particulars , the accused on Sept. 9 may either move for a suspension of the arraignment (reset or defer) on grounds of a prejudicial question under Sec. 11 (abovequoted).
If a motion for suspension is denied right there and then, and the accused is compelled to enter a plea, the accused may refuse — the court would then order that a plea of “not guilty” be entered for the accused.
Motions, motions. Act on the motions before Sept. 9, okay?
I haven’t seen the Information (formal charge) for serious illegal detention filed against Janet Lim-Napoles, and therefore would have to refrain from giving an opinion on how detailed or how general it is.
