Mr Lee Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I really cannot blame the prosecutor for not wishing Santos to get bail, yet it would have been nice if they had given bail to her and she did not flee. Interesting about the cameras and seems to show that the Philippines has come into the current world. I am sure the kids will be less intimidated this way, not having to look into Santos eyes and see all the people in the courtroom looking at them. Prosecutors in the Ellah Joy homicide case sought the court’s permission to use live-link TV during the questioning of their two female minor witnesses.“Given their age and level of development, there is that likelihood that they can be subjected to trauma and fear during intense questioning from either counsels,” said the public prosecutors in their pleading. If their petition is approved, the two minors will testify inside the court chamber while the judge, lawyers, respondent and spectators will stay inside the courtroom.Without the live TV link, the prosecutors said the fear and pressure on the minors may prevent them from expressing themselves effectively and distort their testimonies. Prosecutors said they have strong evidence against Santos. They also opposed the petition for bail, saying this would enable Bella to hide anew. “It should be emphasized that Santos went into hiding immediately after the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the court,” the prosecutors said. More Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Video-linked evidence by children is permitted in certain trials in the UK at the Judge's discretion but usually this will be reserved for cases where the child witness is a victim rather than as a third-party or if their identity needs to be protected. If I were a defence lawyer in this case, I would strongly oppose the use of a video link and insist that Santos' Constitutional rights be upheld as provided by Section 14 of Article III ("The Bill of Rights") within the 1987 Constitution: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Neither of the child witnesses are personally involved - they are third parties - and neither is at risk of reprisals. And there is the risk that these children will be coached by their accompanying parent or guardian. What is interesting, though, is the sudden reduction in the number of child witnesses the Prosecution has. Until today, they have stated that they have a total of 15 witnesses including six child witnesses. So, now they have just two and maybe that's all they had all along. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts