00:00Regarding, sir, doon sa may isa sa mga reserve witnesses ng Article 4, upon checking here, kasama po ay isang
00:07psychiatrist.
00:08Does it mean, sir, isa po sa tinitingnan natin, ang gulo, kaya po nasabi ni Vice President Sara Duterte na
00:16ipapapatay po niya ang first couple and even the former House Speaker,
00:21is because merong mental challenge or issue about the mental state of the Vice President?
00:29Again, as I mentioned a while ago when this same question was asked, we cannot yet go into details about
00:37the exact testimonies that our witnesses will give.
00:43But what I can say is that this witness will be relevant in establishing the charges, particularly here, the charge
00:53concerning grave threats.
00:54So it could show, it could establish a lot of things.
00:57Among other things will be the seriousness of the threats, the fact that when it was made, it was not
01:04made in jest.
01:06That you could see from the words used, the actuation and everything and what was done during and after or
01:14even before or consistent to the position that the threat was seriously made.
01:23And there was very intention to produce that intended effect, which is to threaten the recipients of these statements.
01:34Just to add to that explanation, the psychology psychiatrist would be objective in trying to respond to the question of
01:46either the defense and the prosecution.
01:48We can establish an expert analysis as to the seriousness, to establish, the seriousness.
01:58Nobody can actually be able to prove, to establish seriousness of these threats other than, I guess, someone who has
02:10the expertise to objectively assess the utterances.
02:17Kung ibang malalagay dyan, alam natin baka maging partisan.
02:22Ito ang magiging possible na kanyang magiging testimony ay doon lang sa sinasabi ni Attorney Jay na serious ba itong
02:33allegation na ito?
02:34I mean, itong utterances na ito.
02:35So it's an expert view on an assessment on whether these threats are made within seriousness, with seriousness.
02:46So I think the expert analysis, someone who is objective and non-partisan, is the right witness to establish to
02:58the court that,
02:59yes, indeed, these allegations and these threats are made with seriousness.
03:06Kung habol ko na rin, if ever I'm just curious, sabihin ng psychiatrist na merong mental issue or mental challenge
03:16itong si PP Sara.
03:17Ano po ang possible na mangyari doon sa ming resulta ng impeachment?
03:23I'll take this one, Jeyno.
03:24I'll take this one.
03:25First, we don't preempt again.
03:28We will not predict what would be the exchanges, the questions of the House Prosecution Panel,
03:39and also the cross-examination of the defense in the event that the psychiatrist will be presented before the court.
03:49So again, let's go back to the explanation of Attorney Jay Tolosa,
03:55that part of the presentation of the House Prosecution Team, as far as the threat is concerned,
04:01is to establish the seriousness.
04:04Kasi the defense is saying that this is a, kumbaga, parang, hindi naman ito talagang threat, eh.
04:13Yung iba, sabi nila, it's a figures of speech.
04:17Narinig natin yan sa kanila as their form of defense.
04:20Ang iba naman, sabi nila, eh, hindi naman talaga ito threat kasi conditional threat, eh.
04:25So, ibig sabihin, the defense is saying that these are made probably in jest or because of yung spur of
04:33the moment, etc.
04:34So, the only way for the public to know that these threats are made in seriousness, with clarity and with
04:43seriousness,
04:44is for an expert to observe and assess the utterances of threats against the President, the First Lady, and the
04:55former Speaker.
04:56Yun lang po, that's the only purpose for the defense to include, for the prosecution panel,
05:02to include an expert on the subject matter when it comes to the seriousness of the threats made by the
05:10Vice President
05:10against three highest, you know, three personalities.
Comments