Witnesses' unsatisfactory answers not contemptible -- Escudero

Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.

Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero said Thursday that answers of witnesses that are deemed unsatisfactory by senator-judges do not constitute grounds for contempt.

Escudero said this on the 43rd day of the impeachment trial, stressing that all witnesses are entitled to the rights listed under Rule 132, Section 3, of the Rules on Evidence, which have suppletory application to the proceedings, even as they took an oath before the court to testify truthfully and to answer all questions.

“The Chair wishes to emphasize that an answer which may be unsatisfactory is not inherently contemptible. Supreme Court cases have cautioned courts to use the power of contempt with the highest restraint,” the presiding officer said.

Escudero likewise reminded the members of the court, including himself, who earlier said that his patience was “wearing thin,” that they are sitting as senator-judges in a trial.

“Our rules behoove us to receive and evaluate the evidence with impartiality and, due to the often lengthy examination by both parties, with utmost patience as well,” he added.

On Tuesday, senator-judges called out Davao City accountant Vingelin Bajan, a witness fielded by the defense, for supposedly being evasive and taking a long time to respond to questions being asked during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Escudero back then said that his patience was “wearing thin,” considering the repeated answers of the witness that she could not remember details or is not familiar with documents presented by private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia.

The presiding officer also reminded the counsels for both parties, as well as senator-judges, that while they may rigorously examine witnesses and test the credibility of their testimonies, they “must refrain from resorting to a manner of questioning or to making declarations that elicit fear rather than candor.”

“The Chair therefore respectfully requests our distinguished colleagues, the counsels for the parties, including this representation, to exercise the restraint expected of us,” he said.

“Unlike in inquiries in aid of legislation, an answer of ‘I do not know’ or ‘I do not recall’ may be extremely frustrating. It’s one that we may encounter numerous times in a proceeding such as this. What we can control, however, is how we appreciate and weigh the testimonies and statements delivered before this Court,” he added.

Escudero said that they owe it to the parties, witnesses, and the institution they represent to conduct the proceedings with fairness, dignity and respect, “in spite and despite our frustration and/or disappointment with what the witness may or may not be saying.” — RSJ, GMA News