Are there prosecutors who can match up to the best defense lawyers money can buy?

In an interview with broadcast talk show host Ted Failon, newly appointed Prosecutor General (PG) Richard Anthony Donayre Fadullon said the filing of charges against senators and House of Representatives members implicated in the flood control scandal should not be rushed, as many civil society groups demand. “Did the Department of Justice (DoJ) accept the affidavits of Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, engineers Henry Alcantara, Bryce Hernandez, and the contractors Discayas? Are they supported by evidence? What's the point of mentioning a hundred people’s names if you can’t provide what we call proof of their involvement?,” he asked rhetorically in Filipino.

- OSCAR P. LAGMAN, JR.

He said there are many details needed, like supplemental affidavits because the DoJ will delve into the details of whatever they brought out during the Senate and House investigations. We cannot rely solely on their stories. If they become state witnesses, they would be immune to criminal liability. The DoJ needs to be very careful as to who is chosen as a state witness.

Take the case of the testimony of personal knowledge of bribery—the delivery of money to a senator. Usec. Bernardo said he himself handed the senator a large sum of money. Another witness said it was he who delivered the money to the senator. If you were with the DoJ, would you like to know who really handed the money to the senator. We need to provide the details there. Where was the money delivered? How? When did that happen? Where did that happen? How did that happen? Which project was that? What did you talk about? How did that conversation start? All these details are not in their affidavits. That's what we are saying, we need to provide support for our allegations. The DoJ cannot simply grant blanket immunity for all of these witnesses.

‘Another example, a witness said he delivered boxes or suitcases of money to Zaldy Co’s hotel-condominium. Such a story can’t serve as basis for immediately charging Zaldy Co in court or in the Sandiganbayan because that story wouldn’t stand on its own, it’s just a story. That's right. A quantum of evidence is needed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The discussion won't end there. If the matter is brought up in court, the defense lawyer will scrutinize every detail about it during the cross-examinations to ascertain the credibility of the witness. It’s not about the witness presenting himself for media purposes and then when the real court battle comes, he can’t stand by what he had said in the televised Congressional hearings.