Evidentiary weight of admission against interest discussed in Sara Duterte impeachment trial

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

Opinions clashed in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday on whether which has evidentiary weight between an admission against interest and official public documents.

Senator-judge Panfilo “Ping” Lacson raised the question on day 42 of the impeachment trial, directing it to Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay, in-house counsel for Gencorp Industries, Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corporation---the two entities linked to the Vice President.

“This is getting to be interesting, but also confusing. From a layman to a lawyer, Atty. Suzette, between an admission against interest--notarized--and official public documents like the GIS (General Information Sheet), which has more admissibility and probative weight?” Lacson asked.

Punay said she believes that records coming from the Securities and Exchange Commission have more probative weight.

Lacson countered, citing Rule 130 of the Rules of Court regarding the rules of admissibility.

“Alam ko po mas may probative weight or admissibility weight ‘yung admission against interest,” he said.

(As far as I know, an admission against interest carries greater probative weight or admissibility.)

“Meron nga akong kilala, sa TV lang nag-admit, nakulong eh. Ito, notarized pa itong [Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth],” he added.

(I actually know someone who ended up in jail just for making an admission on television. In this case, the SALN is involved.)

Impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero said the matter is subject to the appreciation of the senator-judges.

Gular, for the defense’s part, said that an admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule.

“We have to be clear, Your Honor. Admission against interest is not a rule on probative value. It is an exception to the hearsay rule. In other words, comparing pieces of evidence and statements and the probative weight thereof, with all due respect, is done by the respective court and this case, the senator-judges,” Gular said.

Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan, on the other hand, asserted that an admission is the “highest” in the hierarchy of evidence.

Citing the Rules of Court, Kapunan said that the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.

Escudero said both counsels have valid points.

“Nobody is wrong. Atty. Justin is correct that admission against interest is indeed an exception to the hearsay rule. Atty. Lorna is likewise correct that admission per se has been characterized in fact as the ‘queen of evidence,’ will carry more probative weight especially if it comes from the accused,” the presiding officer said. — RSJ, GMA News