Prosecution, defense accuse each other of delaying Ampatuan trial

Prosecution and defense lawyers in the Maguindanao massacre case on Wednesday accused each other of delaying the nearly two-year-old trial. During the continuation of the proceedings in Taguig City, prosecution witness SPO2 Cixon Kasan took the witness stand to recount how an eyewitness in the massacre — militiaman Kenny Dalandag — came up to their police station hours after the incident and volunteered his statements for the police blotter. Despite Kasan’s testimony implicating Andal Ampatuan Sr., patriarch of the powerful Ampatuan clan and an accused in the case, Ampatuan’s legal counsel Sigfrid Fortun opted not to cross-examine the witness, saying he wants to photocopy all pages of the blotter and go over the contents before cross-examining Kasan at a later date. Other defense lawyers followed suit and deferred their respective turns to cross-examine Kasan. Instead, they requested that another witness be presented on direct examination. The prosecution objected to the request and insisted for the cross-examination of Kasan. Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Peter Medalle said they only prepared Kasan for Wednesday’s hearing because they thought his testimony and the cross-examination that will follow would take time. But Fortun insisted that a second witness be instead presented since it had been agreed upon by both camps during an earlier case management conference that the prosecution should always be prepared with two witnesses every hearing. “What happened to that commitment?" Fortun said. “The prosecution’s move is a twisting of what had been agreed upon." Fortun said the prosecution seemed to be the one causing a delay in the proceedings for its failure to prepare a second witness. The defense lawyers’ move earned the ire of private prosecutor Nena Santos, legal counsel for Maguindanao Gov. Esmael Mangudadatu, who lost his wife and two sisters in the massacre. Santos noted that the defense seemed to be “accumulating" all direct examinations and deferring all cross-examinations. The private prosecutor viewed the move not only as a delaying tactic but something that could work against the prosecution. Santos expressed worries that a testimony that did not go through a cross examination will later be rendered “without a value, without weight, and pointless." She said court rules require a testimony to undergo the proper procedure of being cross examined “in order to determine the validity of the witness." Santos also said that in the meantime that their witnesses are not being cross examined, the witnesses could be subjected to threats or worse be killed, which would render rendering his or her testimony without value for the court. “Dine-delay ng defense ang proceedings tapos sa amin ipo-point ang blame," Santos said, stressing that the defense should not “force" the prosecution to present a new witness. — KBK, GMA News