Defense: De Lima testimony hearsay
MANILA, Philippines - The lawyers of Chief Justice Renato Corona said on Wednesday that the direct examination of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima showed that the decision to restrain the effectivity of the watch list order against former President Gloria Arroyo was a collegial decision of the court, and not an individual decision of Corona.
"Pinatotohanan ng ating secretary ang katanungan ng lead counsel na sinuman nagdedesisyon, sabi lahat sila. Nangangahulugan ba nag issue TRO, Chief Justice lang? Ang sagot ay hindi. Umaangat ang katotohanan, the SC acts collegially and not individually," Atty. Tranquil Salvador said.
Defense panel spokesperson Karen Jimeno said de Lima's testimony had a lot of hearsay statements because she was only quoting from the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and was not present during the court's deliberations.
"'Di niya rin alam ano nangyari. Mahirap mag-rely sa dissenting opinion. Hearsay lang sinasabi ni Secretary de Lima sa korte. 'Di niya alam sirkumstansiya nung pinag-usapan," she said.
Salvador said the court has the power to issue ex-parte restraining orders that require no prior hearing.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Share your views
WRONG APPLICATION OF HEARSAY RULE
its hearsay if the fact sought to be proven is the truth of what j. sereno wrote in her dissenting opinion. it is NOT hearsay and therefore admissible if the fact sought to be proven is the MERE CONTENT of the dissenting opinion, whether the said content is true or not. it is NOT NECESSARY for anybody to testify about the dissenting opinion for the fact of the dissenting opinion to be proven. all the prosecution has to do is ask that the impeachment court take judicial notice of the dissent, it being of public record.
DELIMA is the greatest
DELIMA is the greatest MISTAKE and DISASTER in the legal profession. The heck she pose herself as brilliant legal mind, when she doesnt have one. It's so embarrassing and humiliating watching her bastardize the law. She has no right to interpret the majority decision or any decision of the supreme court for that matter. She has no right to disobey the orders of the supreme court. Even a first year law student would see her as an idiot pretending to be to be legal guru. She is the most misfit, incompetent secretary of justice. What... she cant digest even the basic and elementary principles in law.
as usual
while the prosecution team proving the defense team denies.
It is not surprising defense will say it is hearsay to debunk de Lima testimony.
Not surprising for the defense to remark that way.
But it does not mean the defense is correct.
We know better!!
owwss
1. Hearsay as defined by Merriam-Webster means "rumor" (sa tagalog pa "tsismis").
2. Rumor as defined by Merriam-Webster means, among others:
(a) Talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
(b) Statement or report without known authority for its truth
De Lima's narration of Sereno's statement is based from Sereno's dissenting opinion which was promulgated in December 2011, which therefore is "PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE". Everyone who knows how to "READ" can easily satisfy their "hunger for truth" first hand by going to the Supreme court website and downloading this opinion...
So, how can De Lima's narration be considered "hearsay" when we know for a fact where the source came from? To say such narration is hearsay is to say that there is an outside chance that Sereno really did state what De Lima read during her testimony....
Hindy sya direct witness sa usapin ng SC, so hearsay lang
Hindi naman verbatim yung narration ni De Lim as if carbon-copy lahat nung sinabi niya dun sa nakasulat na dissenting opinion nung Associate Justice. Ininterpret lang niya ayon sa kaniyang paniniwala kung ano ang naganap dun sa caucus sa Supreme Court. So haka-haka lang niya yung narration niya. Hindi naman sya direct witness dun sa SC caucus.
Papalabasin niya na inimpluwensyahan ni Corona yung mga mahistrado? Dapat si Justice Sereno ang nilagay nilang testigo. Babasahin mo rin lang pala yung dissenting opinion, bakit hindi na lang si Willy Revillame ang ginawa nyong testigo, kaya rin niyang basahin yang dissenting opinion at gumawa ng sarili nyang kuro-kuro.
And besides, opinion ni De Lima ang issue dito. Hindi yung pagbabasa niya ng dissenting ruling ni Seleno. Dahil lahat tayo nabasa na yun, so bakit kailangan pa niyang ulitin kung ano ang nakasulat????
Jimeno is nuts. Didn't she
Jimeno is nuts. Didn't she know that a dissenting opinion is also a part of an SC decision? It can be cited just like the Decision itself. So how can it become hearsay? Niloloko mo ang taumbayan Jimeno, mahiya ka naman!
De Lima testimony already public knowledge
De Lima's testimony came as no surprise to me. It was already known to me from various news releases from the internet. If Jimeno does not know this, she must have no reading comprehension or no access to the internet. Or as they say "mahirap gisingin yong natutulugan".
Basahin mo munang mabuti
Ang sinabi ni Jimeno, yung TESTIMONY NI DE LIMA ang hearsay. Hindi niya sinabi na yung dissenting opinion nung Associate Justice ang hearsay. Kaya sabi ni Jimeno na hearsay lang yung mga conclusion ni De Lima, kasi wala naman sya dun sa caucus ng Supreme Court nung ginawa yung ruling. Binasa lang niya yung dissenting opinion, at gumawa sya ng sarili niyang opinion ayon dun sa nabasa niya, kaya tinawag na hearsay yung sinasabi niya sa korte.
Ikaw ang magbasa ng mabuti.
Ikaw ang magbasa ng mabuti. Labing isa ang exceptions sa hearsay rule na nakasaad sa a ting Rules of Court. Mag aral ka muna bago ka kumahol.