By Ronron
October 10, 2007
The 13 Magdalo officers who constitute the first batch of accused scheduled to start presenting their defense Wednesday at the Makati City Regional Trial Court for the crime of coup d’ etat did not take the witness stand, believing that there is no need for them to prove their innocence.
According to one of the defense lawyers, in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and not the defense.
“Even if the accused would not give a testimony in their favor, if the prosecution fails to adduce the quantum of evidence required, then the case will have to be dismissed,” Atty. Reynaldo Robles, lawyer for accused Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, told reporters after the hearing.
“We feel that the prosecution was not able to discharge the evidence, the burden of evidence. And in a criminal case, it is not the weakness of the defense but it is the strength of the defense against the accused (that matters),” he added.
The 13 officers that was scheduled to defend themselves yesterday were led by Army Captains Gerardo Gambala and Milo Maestrecampo, two of the core leaders of the Magdalo Group. There are a total of 29 officers and two former enlisted personnel facing coup d’ etat charges before the Makati RTC Branch 148 in relation to the failed mutiny in July 2003 at the Oakwood Hotel in Makati City.
What the lawyers of the 13 submitted to the court instead were documents such as photocopies of transcripts of the deliberation of the coup d’ etat law by the Senate and House of Representatives, and records of the case of Senator Gregorio Honasan.
The first will supposedly support the defense’ argument that no crime was committed because it says that coup d’ etat is a crime committed in government installations, while the second would supposedly reinforce their call to quash the case because it is similar to Honasan’s.
“Supposedly, the theory of the prosecution is the mastermind is Senator Honasan. But they dismissed the case against him. So, these documents are being reproduced in this particular case to cite them as basis for dismissal (of the case),” Robles explained.
He disclosed that while the other defense lawyers plan to present their own sets of evidence, both documentary and witnesses, they might also adopt as their own the document filed by Atty. Hortencio Domingo, the lawyer of the 13.
Wednesday’s hearing was the first for the defense to present its case since the trial began in 2003.
Out of the 31 accused, only 16 attended the hearing, including Trillanes, who was in blue polo and black pair of pants, and was no longer handcuffed.
The next hearing would be on October 25.
After the hearing, Trillanes took time to answer questions from the media regarding the impeachment complaint filed by their former lawyer, Atty. Ruel Pulido.
“We were very much disappointed,” Trillanes said of Pulido’s move, which, he said is rumored to have been done in collusion with people from Malacanang.
“It is possible. It is highly probable,” he said of the rumor.
Trillanes pointed out that while he was advocating for the impeachment of Arroyo, he will not be supporting Pulido’s initiative, which, he said was described by a lawmaker as “not worth the paper it was written on.”
He stressed that the Magdalo has nothing to do with Pulido’s move, citing their parting of ways since September 2006.
“We are not in speaking terms since September last year… He resigned,” Trillanes said, although he refused to disclose the cause of the parting of ways.
His message for Pulido: “I wish him luck. I really hope he survives his career.”
Pulido filed the complaint against Arroyo last Friday in relation to the alleged anomalous National Broadband Network (NBN) project proposal. His complaint was endorsed by Laguna Congressman Edgar San Luis but many observers said it was only meant to make the President immune from a real, substantial impeachment complaint./DMS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment