commentary Trial experience counts
Trial experience counts
Tuesday, 31 January 2012 00:00
THERE is no question that in an impeachment trial, as in any other litigation proceedings, experience counts a lot, but it is not everything. In the ongoing impeachment trial of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the prosecution team admits that they are faced with an almost formidable defense team led by former Justice Serafin Cuevas. However, lack of experience notwithstanding, the prosecution team should take comfort and be inspired with the thought that they have in their favor the vigor as well as the charisma of the youth plus the fact that Filipinos love the underdogs. At present, however, it is most unfortunate that the prosecution chose to be represented by a private lawyer whom my barkada in the Plazans say have a face only a mother can love. Not only that, he's got a squeaking impertinent voice so much so that the feisty Senator-Judge Santiago was quick to rudely remark that his expertise is limited on maritime laws.
In my more than three decades of litigation work in almost all parts of the country, from north to south and elsewhere, I have found out that Jesuit Education tops (with indulgence to the other educators) for the simple reason that the Jesuits take pains to inculcate in the minds and hearts of their students Christian values more than anything else. Believe you me, Christian values earn "pogi points" so that even if one is not so blessed with good looks, his humility and composure coupled with a respectful smile normally disarms even an egoist ill-mannered lecturing judge. An experienced litigation lawyer with Christian values engrained in his heart and mind would simply smile, bow down his head, shut his mouth and listen intently to the "sermon." Then and only then can an egoist judge realize that she blundered in the eyes of the public
Got the message?
Whenever a lecturing magistrate opens his or her mouth, rightly or wrongly, a wise practicing lawyer earns the admiration of all concerned by listening and hearing every word coming out from the lecturing magistrate. The main reason for listening and hearing carefully is to be able to respond respectfully and intelligently and thus cut her to size. Otherwise, the respond would only hurt your case all the more. I keep on emphasizing listening and hearing religiously because many practitioners close their mouths but they also close their ears, thereby hearing nothing.
A classic no-no is what the second public prosecutor uttered right after being dressed down rightly by Senator-Judge Enrile. Because he did not listen despite closing his mouth, his impertinent response drew only laughter and more contempt from the public. No doubt, my Plazans barkada would have said that what he did was a wrong mistake and worst, he's got a face even a mother may find difficult to love. If I would have my way, I would add a few good-looking and skill full private litigation lawyers with soothing, clear, penetrating and humble voice, if only to mesmerize the feisty Senator-Judges and as a finale put on center stage an innocent-looking beauty with compelling brains as the prosecution's ultimate private prosecutor to ensure conviction, if that is the prosecution's objective and not something else.
by Butch Bagabuyo
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Fire Fox or 
Google Chrome.`