MANILA, Philippines — The Senate Impeachment Court will consider not only the consistency of witnesses’ testimonies but also whether their statements conform with common human experience when determining their credibility, court spokesman Regie Tongol said Tuesday.
Tongol said senator-judges, under the court’s rules on evidence, may use their understanding of ordinary human behavior in assessing the totality of evidence presented in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
He said this principle allowed the senator-judges to examine whether a witness’ answers were credible, responsive and consistent with the circumstances surrounding the testimony.
Lawyers, he added, may also use seemingly evasive or non-responsive answers to test witness’ credibility.
“The senator-judges will base their decision on whether they are satisfied that the testimony of that witness is credible or not,” Tongol said.
The court spokesman made the clarification amid questions over the testimony of Gina Acosta, a witness whose repeated answers during questioning prompted observations that her testimony appeared scripted.
Tongol said minor inconsistencies in testimony may actually strengthen a witness’ credibility under Supreme Court jurisprudence, while testimony that appears excessively rehearsed or “overly placarded” could have the opposite effect.
He stressed, however, that he was speaking only in general terms and was not making a specific finding on Acosta’s testimony.
Witness preparation allowed
Tongol also said it was normal for lawyers to prepare witnesses before they testify through mock direct or cross-examinations.
Such preparation allows a witness to become familiar with the questions and improve the clarity of his or her answers, he said.
But lawyers cannot dictate the answers to be given by witnesses, as this could amount to witness tampering.
The issue arose in connection with Acosta, who was declared a hostile witness. Tongol said that under the Rules on Evidence, counsel who presents a hostile witness may ask leading questions and seek to impeach the witness' credibility.
Acosta had acknowledged being an employee of the Office of the Vice President for a considerable period and said Duterte had provided legal assistance to her in cases she was facing.
Given Acosta’s relationship with the respondent and the nature of her testimony, Tongol said it would not be unusual for the defense to have communicated with or prepared her before she took the stand. He emphasized, however, that he was not concluding that she had been rehearsed.
He likewise cited the case of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Matibag, who acknowledged communicating with the House prosecution panel before his testimony. Such discussions, Tongol said, were part of normal trial preparation and may cover the issues and questions to be tackled.
