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…)
senate #scrappork hearing: Notes on how to show genuineness of signatures of Enrile, Jinggoy, Bong Revilla
News peg: Ongoing Senate committee hearing on the affidavit of pork barrel co-respondent and TRC director Dennis Cunanan (part of the defenses of the pork barrel scam suspects Senators Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla is: the endorsement of the fake NGOs by the senators and their orders to release the funds and implement the bogus projects as shown by their signatures on the pertinent documents — were supposedly forged.
blog admin’s notes: Signatures can be authenticated not just by the person who signed; they can also be authenticated by 1)any person who saw said person sign the documents, 2)or who was present when the person signed the document, 3)or by any person who is familiar with the signature of the person (such as office staff or colleagues or those with whom the person has transacted in the past), or by a handwriting expert. The approval of transactions as evidenced by the signatures may also be proved by the subsequent ratification of those transactions by the person whose signature appears in those documents — in this case, ratification means that the acts or pronouncements of the principal (the senator) subsequent to the transaction show that he had given his assent or approval of the transaction. In the case at hand, the subsequent ratification was made through phone conversations with the principals (the senators) and/ or their duly authorized agents/ representatives (chief of staff); and/or by other subsequent acts, such as: by joining the agents or representatives for a cup of coffee when the transactions were being made or finalized, etc.
