Allegations of a serious nature, especially those forming the basis of a criminal complaint, must generally be made under oath.
This is a basic requirement in criminal procedure and legal proceedings in Philippine jurisprudence to establish credibility and legal accountability of an accuser and the accused.
These things emerge, with allegations, aired in social media platforms purportedly edited from abroad, made by absent from the Philippines former Rep Zaldy Co, who left the country soon after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. publicly criticized ghost flood control projects in his fourth State of the Nation Address on July 28.
The airing of the videos came a couple of days before the first of scheduled three days peace rally spearheaded by the Iglesia ni Cristo, a protest against corruption and a search for transparency and accountability, where some political groups who wanted to join were not allowed because they appeared to the organizers to have a different agenda.
We heard the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines and the Protestant churches saying they are not officially participating in the three-day rally at Luneta and the EDSA Shrine, with the former cautioning the public against “political exploitation” of Co’s unsworn allegations – that the President sought P100 billion in insertions in the proposed national budget.
Philippine jurisprudence is clear: allegations that may morph into a criminal “complaint” must be in a sworn written statement, with the person making statements under oath exposing himself, if he is making false allegations, to penalties for perjury which are fines and jail terms under existing laws.
Unsworn allegations, as those made in social media, without the benefit of cross examinations, direct examinations, re-cross and re-direct, cannot be considered in formal legal proceedings, which crushes the credibility of any accuser.
In other words, serious allegations, as those made by Co, require a sworn statement to ensure the veracity and allow for legal action if the allegations are found to be false.
Some have called Co’s allegations “cheap,” “unbecoming,” “dumb,” and “without probative value.”
Allegations without an oath, while they may be made in written pleadings – which are not automatically considered evidence with probative value – are typically part of the initial legal process but must be proven with other evidence.
Otherwise, the out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter it asserts is hearsay and is generally inadmissible in court as it lacks the opportunity for cross-examination.
The allegation, if it must have probative value, must have the ability to prove a fact to be admissible under the rules of evidence.
For the lay person, the non-existence of probative value essentially means the presented evidence does not help resolve the core issue of the criminal charge.
