Ariola: Impeachment bloopers

Thursday, February 2, 2012

IN CRIMINAL law, there is a revered doctrine that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. As a corollary to the same doctrine, the prosecution is always called upon to rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. The burden of proof may shift only to the accused if the latter will invoke a justifying circumstance, e.g. self-defense, because by claiming such a defense, he theoretically admits to the killing of the victim. So he has to prove the elements of self-defense to justify his act. The law requires the guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to overcome the presumption of innocence. Anything short of such standard as to the guilt of the accused warrants an acquittal.

It is thus mind-boggling to think that the prosecution panel in the impeachment proceedings would have the gall to plead from the Senate President that the quantum of proof be relaxed in their favor. From the very stringent “proof beyond reasonable doubt” applied in criminal cases, the prosecution would want it to be reduced to the lesser amount of proof – “substantial evidence” - normally used in administrative cases. When I heard Cong. Niel Tupas Jr. beseeching Sen. Enrile to go easy on them, I nearly fell off my chair. The retort of the Senate President was a knockout punch – “Are you suggesting that we allow irrelevant or objectionable questions? Or leading questions on direct examination?” The lead prosecutor could only answer meekly and timidly – “no”.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

To an ordinary layman, it would seem that the Senate President was indeed favoring the defense. But to any student of the law or to any lawyer worth his salt, the rejoinder of Sen. Enrile to Cong. Tupas’ importuning was, and is, a good point of law. After all, isn’t the impeachment proceeding called a “trial”? And why cry foul over the incessant “objection” of the defense? A good defense counsel will always object to faulty direct examination of a witness by the opposing counsel. An objectionable question must be objected to immediately after one is propounded by the examiner to the witness. Otherwise, if the other counsel just keeps quiet and fails to object he is deemed to have waived any objection and the answer of the witness will remain on record. Such is trial technique.

After two weeks of trial, it is very obvious to a keen observer that the prosecution has committed a lot of bloopers in the course of their presentation. And it is a pity that the prosecutors would still have the temerity to flaunt their utter lack of “practice” as an excuse to cover up their ineptness and lack of legal savvy. A good lawyer always prepares himself in all the facets of the case before he goes to battle in the courtroom. There is no excuse to lack of preparation. While Sen. Enrile and Justice Cuevas might be octogenarians already, yet their knowledge of the rules and the applicable laws in these proceedings is impeccable. As for our fellow Ilonggos on the floor, only Inday Miriam’s luminescence shines brighter. Yet she still claims to be on the verge of suffering from “terminal boredom.”