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…)
Janet Lim-Napoles hospital arrest: Guide for male reporters
News directors should inform their male reporters that the uterus (in Filipino: matris or matres) is different from the ovaries so that they would not cause confusion when they are covering the impending temporary hospital arrest of pork barrel queen Janet Lim-Napoles. Magkaiba po ang uterus sa ovaries. Women who have access to health care and get annual diagnostics know this. Apparently, male reporters think those are all one bunch or one basket. The distinction is significant because uterine tumors, called myomas, if non-symptomatic, are benign in 99 out of 100 cases; symptomatic ovarian cysts on the other hand raise some concern from your ob-gynecologist. “Symptomatic” means there is bleeding outsideof the menstrual days, another is abdominal pain, and still another is a dramatic increase in the size of the cyst or tumor – dramatic increase is 50% or more increase in size in three months or so. GMA 7 news anchor Kara David asked the right question when she posed this to the spot reporter (another male reporter): “Ngayonlang ba nakita na may cyst siya o noon pa niya iniinda iyan” (translation: “Has she had the cyst for quite sometime or was it discovered only recently?”). As I said, women who have access to health care know these things. Of course, as expected, none of the male reporters who were there in Camp Crame covering Janet Lim-Napoles knew the right questions to ask of the attending physician and the ob-gynecologists even if they had a chance during the medical briefing. The question from Kara David is significant — if the cyst has been there for a year or more and it is the same in size or with only an insignificant increase in size, it is what doctors call “not remarkable”. In all your medical diagnostics, if you get a “not remarkable”, it doesn’t mean you’re in poor health; on the contrary, it means “normal” or good — everytime you get a “not remarkable” in your medical exam, you should jump for joy then put your palms together in thankful prayer that you’re always in the clear. Compared to most women in this country who do not have access to health care and who are so marginalized that they are not even able to buy a toothbrush for themselves because they use the few pesos they have to buy noodles for their children, Janet Lim-Napoles should consider herself fortunate that she has access to world-class medical care. We all wish her to be in the best of health so that justice, not just poetic justice, could be served.
