SENATOR-JUDGE ALAN PETER CAYETANO:
(0:00:00) Just some thoughts uh presiding officer this is not yet an appeal from your ruling and maybe a question to the counsel of the defense just to refresh our memory Rule 132, Section 17 when part of a transaction writing or record given in evidence the remainder admissible when part of our act declaration conversation writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject maybe inquired into by the other. And when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given in evidence. Any act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record, necessary to it’s understanding, may also be given in evidence.
(0:00:45) So, I’m not appealing yet. I see the logic of the ruling of the presiding officer. Ito lang po ang tanong ko. Is the defense going to ask later on for the showing of the whole video?
(0:00:58) Because if they are, why don’t we just watch the whole of it? Because we’re going to have to assess the context if it was really a threat. What did she say before or after? And I don’t really want to go home today believing one thing based on a two-minute clip and then come back next week to watch the two-hour clip. I think most of us saw parts of the clip.
(0:01:25) Of course, I don’t also feel like watching the two-hour… I don’t even watch two-and-a-half-hour movies, much less this. But I’m just putting this at the feet of the presiding officer and my colleagues, na kung gagawin din naman natin eventually yung and half hours, mas gusto ba natin putulin muna ngayon at may iniisip tayo. And then later on the 2-hours? Or can the two parties agree of the 2 and half hours, which one yung may context. So I’m not criticizing the prosecution’s motion. I see what you mean.
(0:02:00) May I ask that one question to the defense if they’re going to ask, presiding officer?
PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(0:02:05) For the presiding officer, we cannot dictate nor predict what either counsel for the prosecution or respondent will do during the presentation of their evidence-in-chief. Even if they say yes to us now, actually they have every right to change their mind and do so anymore.
SENATOR-JUDGE ALAN PETER CAYETANO:
(0:02:23) I agree your honor. But if they do answer now that they want it shown, may we consider, I mean, if I’m the only one who wants to see it as a whole, then I will submit to everyone else. But if everyone else is saying we will eventually watch the whole of it, we might as well get it over and see the context of the whole video, unless the two parties can agree.
(0:02:48) That they only want to look at 30 minutes or one hour. I don’t know what context they’re talking about. I’m just trying to expedite Mr. President.
PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(0:02:56) Both parties, Senator-Judge Alan Cayetano, marked the same video.
SENATOR-JUDGE ALAN PETER CAYETANO:
(0:03:00) Yes. May I ask the…
PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(0:03:03) … which is over two hours.
SENATOR-JUDGE ALAN PETER CAYETANO:
(0:03:03) May I just ask the defense, do they plan to ask us to watch the whole…
PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(0:03:08) Counsel for Defense will please reply to the question of Senator-Judge Cayetano.
DEFENSE NARVASA:
(0:03:13) First, Your Honor, precisely why we’re asking to watch the video is because we don’t know what the contents of that video is. We don’t know if it’s any different or the same with our video. And to answer the question of the Honorable Senator, yes, we will be asking the entire two-hour 26-minute video to be presented and watched later on during our cross.
SENATOR-JUDGE ALAN PETER CAYETANO:
(0:03:37) So on that point, Mr. President and presiding officer, hindi naman nakalagay sa Section 17 when. And usually, at least for myself, if I have to watch 30 minutes and then may i-emphasize na 30 seconds, 2 minutes, 1 minute, pinapanood muna yung buo.
(0:03:56) And then, saka papanoorin yung maikli na ine-emphasize. Para walang pre-judgement. Kasi kapag nauna yung portions na maliliit, and then saka mo lang sasabihin later on “ah, ito pala yung context nito”, medyo umiiba.
(0:04:10) But again, I’m only one of the 24, so I leave it to my colleagues. If we’re going to have to watch it anyway, may I ask the presiding officer what the pleasure is? But since the rule doesn’t say, personally, I’d rather watch the whole thing and get it over with than allow the prosecution to pick out the portions that quickly say, that goes into the center of the controversy or what they want to prove.
PRESIDING SENATOR-JUDGE ESCUDERO:
(0:04:38) Without disagreeing with Senator-Judge Cayetano, for the presiding officer, it’s just that I don’t think the court should impose or dictate upon either party how they will present their evidence-in-chief. Although it would save the court some time if they, but we can also waste a lot of time arguing about this instead of watching the two-minute video.
SENATOR-JUDGE ALAN PETER CAYETANO:
(0:05:05) Mr. Presiding-Officer, I’m not saying we dictate because there was an objection and you ruled. You can change your ruling or we can appeal. But I’m saying I’m just one. So if everyone agrees na portion muna, I will submit to that. But if everyone else thinks na panoorin na yung buo then baka we can… I can appeal your ruling without voting. So I’m just bringing up this issue for expediency, but I leave it up to what everyone else thinks about it.
