State witness

Watching Ruby Tuason testifying at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing last Thursday reminded me of a scene in the film Godfather Part II. Enthusiasts of the movie trilogy will remember an inquiry being conducted by the US Senate on the criminal activities of the Corleone family. A mid-level official of the latter, Willie Cicci, had provided evidence on the family’s operations but could not link Michael Corleone as he never dealt directly with him. The US DoJ was then able to locate a witness, caporegime Frank Pantangelli, who not only corroborated Cicci’s testimony but also claimed that he directly received instructions from Michael Corleone to liquidate the latter’s opponents. While in the custody of authorities, Frank executed a sworn affidavit but when he was about to testify during the Senate hearing, his older brother from Sicily suddenly shows up “to aid his brother in his time of need.” The latter’s presence leads him to suddenly recant his sworn statement.

Unfortunately for the real life personalities involved in the ongoing PDAF scandal, there was no relative that could stop Ms. Tuason from baring it all. Claiming “she did not want to die with millions of Filipinos hating [her] or [her] grandchildren being ashamed of [her],” she not only corroborated previous testimonies of other whistle blowers but also provided crucial direct evidence that substantially elevates the proof that has been presented so far against the alleged PDAF misusers. Clearly, in the eyes of the discerning public, the presumption of innocence has shifted. The suspected wrongdoers will need to present their explanations soon to counter the serious allegations leveled against them.

Aside from doing it for her grandchildren, I am certain that there was also an agenda of self-preservation on the part of Ms. Tuason. That is but a rational, human reaction. But just because a person wants to save her own skin does not mean she is lying. In fact she has not been discharged to be a state witness or admitted into the witness protection program so she has taken a real risk in returning to the country and testifying against close and powerful friends.

The rule to qualify as a state witness is found in §10 of RA 6981 and §17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. It traces its lineage from American procedure where it is termed as “turning State evidence” and, further back, to England where it was known as “turning Queen’s/King’s evidence.” The need for state witnesses stems from the constitutionally guaranteed right against self incrimination. Logically, the best evidence in respect of any criminal activity can be provided by the accused himself. However, Anglo-Sixon tradition mandates that with all its resources, the Crown or the State must be able to prove its case independent of the accused’s testimony. Hence the next best evidence can be supplied by someone who had participated in the crime albeit to a lesser degree. In exchange for testifying on behalf of the State against his co-accused, a party may be discharged from the information and exempted from criminal liability. In respect of the five requisites needed to qualify as a state witness, Ms. Tuason’s challenge is to prove that: (1) her testimony is absolutely necessary; and (2) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except her testimony.

*      *      *      *

Over reaction?: I have mixed feelings about the decision of Ateneo de Manila University to call off work and classes last Wednesday due to a bomb threat. As an alumnus and now a grade school parent, I would of course prefer school authorities to err on the side of caution in an emergency situation. But reviewing the factual antecedents as reported in print and social media, query as to whether an evacuation of the Loyola Heights campus was the prudent thing to do?

Three employees received the following text message at 9:24, 9:26 and 9:29 a.m. respectively: “May mga bomba na sasabog sa Ateneo. Paniguradong maraming estudyante at empleyadong mamamatay 30 minuto mula ngayon. (There are bombs that will explode in Ateneo, Many student and employees will surely die 30 minutes from now).”

So should a school order a mass evacuation of its campus solely on the basis of a text message? As stated earlier, prudence should be the better part of valor but were there other circumstances that prompted such a drastic response? And if we were to believe the timeline provided in the text message, the most you can probably do in 30 minutes is to alert the various school units and local authorities so that they can prepare for a potential evacuation and rescue. I am also perplexed why the decision to call off classes was made close to noon (or long after the 30 minute warning was over).

And how did the stakeholders react? After receiving text messages from class coordinators to pick up their kids, frantic parents rushed to school. This created a horrible traffic snarl along Katipunan which further heightened the anxiety of all concerned. It took my wife 2 ½ hours to traverse C-5 and get to Ateneo. And what about the kids? Many of the young ones were traumatized. My grade 5 & 6 boys said they cried when they saw their classmates crying. I am certain that the teachers were stressed as well having to handle 30 to 40 bewildered students.

I recognize that hindsight is always 20-20 but school authorities will need to plan for these eventualities. And they should really exert effort to locate and punish the culprit who caused the bedlam. Rey@reypinmoko was probably right in saying: “Pustahan tayo young bomb threat sa Ateneo imbento lang ng estudyante hindi pa handa mag orals sa Philo.” (I want to bet that the bomb threat at Ateneo was created by a student who was not ready to take the Philosophy orals.) 

*      *      *      *

“In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” —George Orwell

*      *      *      *

Email: [email protected]