THE LAW ON EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

By
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago
(Excerpts from her interpellation of Ruby Tuason at the Senate hearing on 13 February 2014.)
Absence of Senators
Out of 24 senators, why are only 9 senators present? Who or what has convinced these senators to
stay away? What are they afraid of?
Positive vs. Negative Assertions
Ms. Tuason's affidavit is a positive assertion. The denials respectively of Senator Enrile and Senator
Estrada are negative assertions. In law, the positive has more weight than a negative assertion. This
rule is reiterated in the following latest decisions of the Supreme Court:

"Denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with disfavour by the
courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted, as in this case. Verily, mere denial,
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be
given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on
affirmative matters." People v. Monticalvo, 689 SCRA 715 (2013).

"Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that appellants committed the crime. Unless
substantiated by clear and convincing proofs, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving
of any weight in law." People v. Nelmida, 680 SCRA 386 (2012).

"Under the evidentiary rules, a positive assertion is generally entitled to more weight than a
plain denial." Career Phil. v. Serna, 686 SCRA 676 (2012).

"Denial, like alibi, as an exonerating justification, is inherently weak and if uncorroborated,

regresses to blatant impotence." People v. Barde, 631 SCRA 187 (2010).
Eyewitness v. Circumstantial Evidence
Eyewitness is stronger than circumstantial evidence. There are two kinds of evidence:
1. Direct or eyewitness evidence - Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and
that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.
2. Indirect or circumstantial evidence - Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or
observation.
The Tuason affidavit states that she personally delivered money to Senator Jinggoy Estrada at his
house in Greenhills, San Juan or in his office in the Senate. The Tuason affidavit also said in answer to
question No. 41: "I personally received the share of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile from Janet Napoles and
personally gave it to Atty. Gigi Reyes, who in turn picked it up personally in my house or in a restaurant
where we both agreed to meet."
Enrile Presence Sufficient to Prove Conspiracy

To question No. 44, Tuason said: "Atty. Gigi Reyes would pick up the money alone. I remember
occasions that Senator Juan Ponce Enrile would join us, when we are almost done, for a cup of coffee."
In answer to question No. 45, Tuason said: "He did not stay long. After coffee, he would leave and
sometimes he would come to pick-up Atty. Gigi Reyes."
The mere presence of Senator Enrile, even if he did not say anything, establishes that he was a
conspirator in the scam.
Civil Code, Art. 1371: "In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous
and subsequent acts shall be principally considered."
Penal Code, Art. 8: "A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."
"To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be shown that he had
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. Such an act may consist of
active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or of moral assistance to his coconspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime or by asserting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators to execute or implement the conspiracy." (Petso v. People,
262 SCRA 518 (1996).
"Well-settled is the rule that it is not indispensable that a co-conspirator should take a direct hand in
the commission of a felony." (People v. Camaddo, 217 SCRA 162 (1993).
Status of State Witness
There are two ways by which a person can become a state witness:
1. By discharge from the criminal case under the Rules of Court, Rule 119, Sec. 17.
2. By approval of your application for admission into the Witness Protection Program of the Department
of Justice under R.A. No. 6981.
To be a state witness under the Rules of Court, you have to meet five requirements:
1. Absolute necessity for your testimony;
2. No other direct evidence;
3. Your testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
4. As one of the accused, you do not appear to be the most guilty; and
5. As an accused, you have not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Under the Witness Protection Program, I presume that you have taken the following steps:
1. You applied for and were granted certificate of admission to WPP by the DOJ.

2. You presented the certificate to the Ombudsman. Under existing jurisprudence, the Ombudsman as
prosecutor will give the DOJ certificate full faith and credit. Further, according to jurisprudence, the
determination of who should be a state witness is basically an executive, not a judicial, function.
3. The prosecutor will petition the Sandiganbayan as the trial court for your discharge, and your
exclusion as an accused from the information.
Thus, you will be extended immunity in two ways:
1. By DOJ, under R.A. No. 6981; and
2. By the court, where the information has been filed, and you have been arraigned and the case is
undergoing trial.
Law Encourages State Witness
Regardless of your explanation on why you decided to turn state witness, the fact is that the law not
only allows but also encourages you to become a state witness. I quote from the 2013 case of
Ampatuan, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice (695 SCRA 159):
"These modes are intended to encourage a person who has witnessed a crime or has knowledge of its
commission to come forward and testify in court or a quasi-judicial body, or before an investigating
authority, by protecting him from reprisals and shielding him from economic dislocation."
Accordingly, I humbly encourage you to tell all you know about any and all PDAF kickback transactions
at this hearing.
State Witness Does not Need Corroboration
Under the Rules of Court, when a witness testifies, his testimony should be corroborated by another
witness. That is the general rule. But there is an exception, as set out in the 2010 case of People v.
Anabe (630 SCRA 20):
"The uncorroborated testimony of a state witness may be sufficient when it is shown to be sincere in
itself, because it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner and full of details which, by
their nature, could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought. This exception, however,
applies only if the state witness is an eyewitness, since the testimony would then be direct evidence."
The above-quoted Rule 119, Sec. 17, actually assumes that the testimony of the accused sought to be
discharged as a state witness would constitute direct evidence (i.e., that he or she is an eyewitness), in
that it requires that there is no other direct evidence, except the testimony of said accused.