Credibility of impeachment witnesses

Based on my little knowledge of evidence, which I learned from my esteemed professors, Atty. Matoy Seno, Judge Jesus Narvios, Judge Romulo Senining, and Judge Lorenzo Paradiang, and on my limited practice in trial lawyering, I submit that first witness John Mark Calilung is credible. And I hasten to say that he has better credentials than the senator-judge who asked what he has.

The Rules of Court, specifically Rules 138 to 134 govern the rules on evaluating the credibility of witnesses. The senator-judges are going to be guided by certain fundamental principles. The problem is that the majority of the senators are not lawyers and may not know the nuances and intricacies of these technical rules.

Section 20 of Rule 130 provides: "All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.” The following persons cannot be witnesses: a.) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; b.) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

The next important rule is how a witness physically and verbally responds (e.g., hesitancy, nervousness) is critical, but decision-makers rely more heavily on whether the testimony is truthful, logical, and corroborated by other evidence. Another rule is about inconsistent testimony in the past. If a witness makes a statement during the trial that contradicts their own sworn affidavits or prior testimonies, their credibility can be challenged. To do this, the examining lawyer must explicitly lay the foundation by confronting the witness with their prior inconsistent statements and giving them a chance to explain

Thus, if a witness makes a statement during the trial that contradicts his or her own sworn affidavits or prior testimonies, their credibility can be challenged. To do this, the examining lawyer must explicitly lay the foundation by confronting the witness with their prior inconsistent statements and giving them a chance to explain. The next rule is that lawyers cannot attack a witness's credibility by bringing up unrelated wrongful acts or unverified bad character. The challenge must focus on material inconsistencies, bias, or prior convictions for specific crimes.

Generally, a party cannot attack the credibility of their own witness. However, if the witness is declared hostile by the committee or tribunal --due to an adverse interest or unjustified reluctance to testify-- the calling party can cross-examine and impeach them. Assessing a prospective witness's credibility varies by the stage of the impeachment. During the initial determination of whether the articles of impeachment are "sufficient in substance", authorities focus only on whether the allegations in the sworn affidavits, if proven true, constitute an impeachable offense. The rigorous testing of witness credibility via cross-examination is reserved for the trial phase itself.

Based on all the above, I firmly declare that the testimony of the NBI agent passed the test of credibility. He has no motive to falsely testify because he does not stand to benefit or be prejudiced by the declaration made by the witness. The defense has not successfully impeached his credibility. The testimony emanated from a credible witness and the story he told is credible by itself.

So far, the prosecution has the upper hand. The defense is losing steam although some senators are trying hard to give aid and comfort to the defense.