MANILA, Philippines - A lawyer representing the Ampatuans in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre trial is opposing a request of the prosecution to present witnesses who are out of the country via video conferencing.
In a three-page motion, lawyer Lou Bryan Macabodbod – representing former Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan Sr. and his sons Andal Jr. and Zaldy – said presenting witnesses through video conference is not allowed under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
“There is nothing in the Rules that allows the presentation of witnesses through video teleconference. It means that the prosecution cannot invent a procedure extraneous to that sanctioned by the law,†read the opposition.
Lack of funds
Last month, private prosecutors filed a motion asking the court to allow two of their witnesses, Myrna Reblando and Reynafe Momay-Castillo, to testify through video conference since they have no funds for their air fare.
Reblando, wife of victim Alejandro Reblando, has fled the country and currently has a pending petition for asylum before the Hong Kong government.
Meanwhile, Momay-Castillo is working in the United States. She is the daughter of alleged 58th victim Reynaldo Momay, whose remains were never found.
The private prosecutors explained that the court can observe the demeanor of the witnesses testifying through video conference and the defense can still cross-examine them.
Countless issues
In his opposition, Macabodbod said the prosecution cannot use lack of funds as a reason since it is not a valid reason to excuse the witnesses from personally appearing in court.
He also argued that the use of video conferencing must be given serious thought by the judiciary as “there are countless issues that may be attributable to this mechanism such the reliability of the Internet connection in terms of speed, stability, and accuracy.â€
Other issues, according to the lawyer, include the accreditation of the software program that will be utilized and the correct procedure in which the special examination is to be conducted.
“There have been no prior cases on record which allowed the examination of a witness via video teleconference,†he added.