Witnesses and their testimonies

THE first time I testified in a big case in court in the '80s, I ended up emotionally drained. I would not say I was under duress but I was under the custody of my captors who provided the court with witnesses against the accused. There was no way I could say no when they asked me to testify. But while the experience was emotionally draining, it also gave me a closer look at how testimonies are crafted.

This has helped me as a journalist in analyzing the demeanor of witnesses especially in celebrated cases. I remember the Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong rape-murder case in 1997 and the testimony of Davidson Rusia against his co-defendants that included Francisco Juan “Paco” Larranaga and Josman Aznar. Rusia was not really a reliable witness but I tended to believe him when he broke down in court.

My understanding as a non-lawyer is that witnesses should not be dictated upon on what to say in court. I found out at that time that the rule is not always followed. I remember somebody suggesting that I would claim to know all of the accused even if I could identify only one.

I thanked my captors for resisting the urge to do that. I told them I was never good at orally concocting storie. The result was that during a lull in my testimony, one of the defense lawyers approached me and whispered his appreciation for my keeping my testimony on the level.

Another thing I learned there is that when an arrested person turns witness, the truthfulness of his or her testimony depends on the character of his or her captors. Captors who do not influence the testimony of the captured are not many.

I am writing about this in the context of the separate arrests of big-time illegal drug peddler Kerwin Espinosa and Sen. Leila de lima's former driver and lover Ronnie Dayan and their subsequent surfacing as witnesses in congressional probes. Espinosa appeared in the Senate and Dayan in the House of Representatives.

Was Espinosa truthful in the affidavit he executed and which he testified to in the Senate hearing? We can't be sure. Did Dayan tell the whole truth when he testified in the House probe? We don't know. But I tend to analyze their testimonies in the context of their status and the intentions of their captors.

Note that Espinosa and Dayan were arrested after Kerwin's father, Albuera, Leyte mayor Rolando Espinosa was killed by elements of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) 8 inside a jail in Baybay City, also in Leyte. Their concern should therefore be more about staying alive than in being truthful.

Meanwhile, the captors of both Espinosa and Dayan were elements of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the lead agency in the Duterte administration's war against the illegal drugs. The PNP is also closely coordinating with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is building cases against those it linked to the illegal drugs trade, whether as peddlers or protectors, including de Lima.

I am not saying this situation precludes Espinosa and Dayan from being truthful in their testimonies. It is possible that the truth coincided with the intentions of their captors. For example, it could be true that de Lima received protection money from Espinosa that was coursed through Dayan. In that case, there would be no reason to “influence” their testimonies to prop up the case being prepared against de Lima.

But what if the truth didn't coincide with the intention of those now holding Espinosa and Dayan? On this, we go to the character and temperament of the captors. Are they decent and objective? Or are they believers in the principle of the means justifying the end?