RECAP - 'That's not what the rule says' - Sen. Chiz, may sagot sa manifestation ni Sison — GMA News

[0:00] And this was also something that the court had already reminded the prosecution. [0:06] It says that the main duty of the prosecution is not really to convict, but to secure a [0:13] just conviction, and therefore, if the conviction is unjust, it should not pursue that conviction. [0:21] Now, all we're saying, Your Honor, is this. [0:27] Why is it that it would seem now that the defense is being limited to what she can only do in [0:39] terms of her presentation of her case-in-chief? [0:44] We're not withdrawing the articles. [0:49] We're not decision for the prosecution that they did this. [0:55] And with respect to the earlier suggestion of Senator Bam, with due respect, I don't think, [1:02] I don't see how that could have affected whatever happened today. [1:08] Because if we did that then, or we didn't do it as a, we really didn't, [1:16] ah, mababago ba noon yung ginawa ng prosecution that they completed presentation of their articles [1:25] on all three, ah, on, on, on, on articles, ah, ah, ah, one and, ah, four? [1:34] And the order, the order, the order of, can you connect, can I cut you short? [1:37] Yes, because you would have been heard, the respondent would have been heard right after the presentation of an article. [1:45] And should they decide to withdraw later on, then both sides would have been heard already. [1:52] That's the, unfortunately, again, that's not what the rule says. [1:56] And unfortunately, too, the parties did not agree. [1:59] With your permission, Attorney Sheila, Senator Judge Bam, Bam's name was mentioned and alluded to, so I'll recognize him for a bit. [2:07] Now, on another point, ah, Mr. Presiding Officer, ah, nais ko lang pong linawin, no, sa both parties kung ano ba yung pinag-uusapan natin. [2:18] So, Attorney Sheila, are you saying that you wish that, ah, these articles are not dropped? [2:24] Of course. [2:24] And that we, ah, continue as we had originally planned? [2:29] Or would you want to talk to your client first if, whether she would prefer that these articles be dropped? [2:37] Kasi, ah, itong disisyon ni presiding officer. [2:41] By the way, I'm gonna ask the same question kay, ah, honorable Jinky rin. [2:47] Because nabanggit rin ni presiding officer na once matupad tong ruling na to, hindi na po, with prejudice, I had to clarify with my colleagues who are lawyers what that means. [2:57] That means that once these are withdrawn, hindi na to pwedeng ibalik ulit, no? [3:02] Ah, wouldn't you want to discuss that first among your team and with Attorney Sheila? [3:08] Ang dating po kasi sa amin, you don't want these articles to be dropped. [3:12] Would you want to discuss that with your client first to be sure kung nais bang maidadrop, nais ba itong madrop na para isang artikel na lang ang pag-uusapan? [3:23] Or nais ba natin itakal to na gaya na pag-usapan dati na apat na article dapat ito, no? [3:30] Um, so that's just my point. [3:32] Would you, would both parties want to discuss this with your respective teams? [3:36] Because medyo mabigat po itong mga, itong ruling na ito. [3:40] And then Mr. Presiding Officer, I'd also like to clarify, is it the court's decision or the prosecution's decision to drop articles? [3:49] Ito po ba'y hinaharap nila sa atin para tayo po'y mag-desisyon? [3:53] Or decision po ito ng prosecution na huwag na italakay yung ibang mga artikulo? [3:57] Hiniling ng prosecution, pinagpasahan ng korte. [4:04] It is a ruling of the chair that, like any other ruling, is subject to either appeal or reconsideration of the proper time once they have had enough time to, as you said, either consult their clients or reflect on the matter. [4:19] So, of course, fully understanding that the appeal or reconsideration would have to be made by a senator judge on the matter. [4:26] So, procedurally, can the defense move for a reconsideration of the court's decision? [4:35] A senator judge can. [4:36] Can move? [4:37] Yes. [4:38] Okay. [4:39] But to answer, without preempting Attorney Sheila, I think what Attorney Sheila is saying, she did not object to the motion of the prosecution to withdraw. [4:50] Only that, because the situation is that a withdrawn article will not be voted upon anymore, there is no mechanism within the rules to allow the presentation of evidence on an article or on a charge that will not be voted upon by the court anymore, as we discussed in the sidebar earlier. [5:15] May I clarify that? Is that correct, Attorney Sheila? You're not objecting to the withdrawal of the article. You're objecting to the ability to address them. Is that correct? [5:24] Good afternoon, Your Honor. Thank you for asking that question. I think the manifestation, my manifestation earlier was clear enough. I, in fact, said, and I would repeat as far as I can recall, I said that this decision to withdraw those articles is the prosecution's lookout. [5:42] And so whatever consequences of those withdrawal, they should be able to bear alone without any, without the respondent suffering any consequences from that decision. [5:55] Now, of course, we take the suggestion that we will consult with the client, and we will, we will. [6:00] However, we really need to record the fact that our objection on whatever is idea, whatever idea that may be floating, you know, at this moment, that this decision of the prosecution will somehow make decisions for how the respondent or the defense will present our evidence sheet or how long it will take us. [6:23] All I'm saying, Your Honor, is that whatever decision of the prosecution in terms of withdrawing all these articles should not preempt the decision of the respondent. [6:39] So kung may represent po kaming evidentia and we will, or that we will be needing a certain number of days para ipresent yung mga evidentia na yon, let the respondent decide because I think it is her right to secure her case from the allegations already propounded and exposed to the public before this quarter. [7:04] Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. [7:05] I see the point of the, um, of, um, attorney Sheila in that whatever the prosecution did today will not tie the hands of the respondent in presenting its evidence without prejudice to the prosecution, objecting at the appropriate time to whatever evidence they may present, um, again, um, in accordance with the rules. [7:27] Let me continue, attorney Sheila. [7:28] The relaxation of Rule 18, insofar as the withdrawn articles, again, just to clarify and enrich the records, was in order to afford the parties, not in the way that, um, the, uh, lead counsel correspondent viewed it, but more, again, in a sense of, for, in, in the interest of fairness. [7:52] Because, as he said, [7:53] Because, as he said, pinagbawal nang ang pagtanggol yung sarili sa loob ng hukuman, bawal pa rin pagtanggol yung sarili sa labas, then that would really be definitely unfair. [8:04] The reason behind the relaxing of Rule 18 was more to afford, um, actually, the respondent to, um, to, um, respond in the manner she may deem fit, both in this courtroom, again, subject to the objections, rulings of the court, and outside. [8:26] All right. [8:27] All right. [8:28] All right. [8:29] All right. [8:30] All right. [8:31] All right. [8:32] All right. [8:33] All right. [8:34] All right. [8:35] All right. [8:36] All right. [8:37] All right. [8:38] All right. [8:39] All right. [8:40] All right. [8:41] All right. [8:42] All right. [8:43] All right. [8:44] All right. [8:45] All right. [8:46] All right. [8:47] All right. [8:48] All right. [8:49] All right. [8:51] All right. [8:52] All right. [8:53] All right. [8:54] All right. [8:55] All right.