By Ade S. Fajardo
Ramil Madriaga’s testimony at the House of Representatives committee on justice last week may be synthesized as follows:
He helped establish ISIP, a non-profit organization intended to propel Sara Duterte to the presidency in 2022.
ISIP stands for Inday Sara Is My President movement.
***
When Duterte slid to the vice presidency under UniTeam, Madriaga claimed he remained active in the campaign and secured funding from drug lords and Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGO).
Madriaga further alleged that he acted as a “bagman” for former President Rodrigo Duterte. He handled and delivered large sums of cash upon Duterte’s instructions.
When his special services were passed on to Duterte’s daughter Sara, he claimed he continued to receive millions of pesos including confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President.
***
This testimony somehow completes the picture on what happened to the OVP’s confidential funds after they were turned over by the disbursement officer to Sara’s top-ranking security personnel.
Liquidation receipts are signed by Mary Grace Piattos and others, but these are under intense scrutiny because they are fictitious names and appear to be written and signed by the same persons as acknowledged by handwriting experts.
Madriaga’s testimony is that cash was turned over to him by the security officers, which he distributed via several deliveries in less than 24 hours.
***
Madriaga’s credibility is now under attack from the VP’s supporters.
He is portrayed as a criminal because he is in detention for kidnapping charges that are currently being heard by a Manila Regional Trial Court. It matters not that there is yet no judgment of conviction.
Even then, the pendency of a criminal case is irrelevant in the determination of the qualifications of a witness. A court can receive testimonial evidence from a convicted felon.
***
According to the rules on evidence, all persons who can perceive or perceiving, and can make their perception to others, may be witnesses.
There are certain disqualifications, like mental incapacity or privileged communications, but a criminal prosecution is not one of them.
For example, take the case of a convict stabbing a fellow convict in his cell at Bilibid. Another convict sees him commit the murder.
Will conviction in a criminal case, the reason for his incarceration, disqualify the testimony of this witness?
Surely not, otherwise justice is denied by the People of the Philippines and the victim’s relatives.
***
In the case of a police rubout or planting of evidence, the modus in several tokhang cases, only police personnel present in the commission of the crime may testify based on personal knowledge and narrate events during the operations.
There is hardly any witness who can qualify as an eyewitness to a crime committed in the dead of the night and away from the eyes of the unsuspecting public.
Indeed, if he is telling the truth that he is an insider, Madriaga is in a unique position to testify on matters that were meant to be hidden in the first place./WDJ