The withdrawal of former Senator Sonny Trillanes as a witness for the prosecution in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte is a major topic that shows how and why witnesses are selected.
The choice is always for the support of the side presenting the witness, prosecution or defense. The decision not to include the former Senator may have been seen as a way to keep the evidence grounded in the witness's direct knowledge.
Former Senator Trillanes might be able to weave a story against Duterte, but most of these will be based on what others told him. He cannot testify to facts he personally knows. These would be based on facts others told him. In other words, it would be hearsay.
The defense will have a heyday pointing this out. It will cloud the prosecution's presentation and will give a hint that all the facts are not facts at all or that they do not prove any offense.
The good former Senator is a key figure in the investigation of the offenses of the previous administration. But this is an impeachment trial where evidence and due process matter, not publicity and what is termed as “optics”.
If he testified, the defense would always object to what he said, leading to an embarrassing situation where his testimony would largely be off-the-record or inadmissible, as pure guesswork.
The better strategy is for the source of his information to testify directly and bring records with them.
The AMLC data and the bank account records presented by persons who have custody of them will be admissible.
In relation to this, the defense lawyers asked for more time to evaluate the AMLC and the bank records, suggesting difficulty in putting up a defense that would explain the evidence showing billions of pesos in the bank accounts of VP Sara and her husband.
Former Senator Trillanes's presence and his inadmissible-in-evidence testimony would have been a diversion the defense could have feasted on.
But that line of defense is no longer available, and they are back to defending based on financial records that are difficult to explain as coming from profitable corporations and legitimate business.
A challenge at the Supreme Court pertaining to the admissibility of the bank records could be in the offing as a last resort for the defense.
But again, the trial is for the most part a unique process where legal provisions give way to political choices mainly related to the 2028 presidential elections.
The votes needed to convict keep dwindling by the week.
A couple more weeks, this made for TV series, should be over. It has been a great learning experience for all.
The past trials are dwarfed by the intensity and expanse of the present one.
I will always remember this quote from Invictus, which VP Sara used to show her refusal to back down under political pressure. - In the fell clutch of circumstance/ I have not winced or cried aloud/ under the bludgeonings of chance/ My head is bloody, but unbowed.
#OpinYon #WeTakeaStand