Neri bid not to testify vs Arroyo denied
Romulo Neri INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—The Sandiganbayan has denied with finality the appeal of former National Economic and Development Authority Director General Romulo Neri not to testify in the graft case against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in connection with the alleged anomalous National Broadband Network contract with China’s ZTE Corp.
In a seven-page resolution issued by the antigraft court’s Fourth Division on Aug. 27, the court denied Neri’s motion for reconsideration to quash subpoena.
Neri invoked that his constitutional right to remain silent is absolute, immutable and unconditional because he is also an accused in another criminal case involving the same issue in the Fifth Division.
He said the doctrine of Chavez vs Court of Appeals (24 SCRA 663 [1968]) bars him from being called as a witness against Arroyo, a second-term representative of Pampanga.
He said he had the right to demand that the prosecution should first dismiss his case in another division before he testifies against his former boss.
Article continues after this advertisementBut in rejecting his motion, the court said the doctrine being cited by Neri actually involves an accused who was being compelled to testify as a prosecution witness in the very same criminal case where he is the accused or defendant himself.
Article continues after this advertisementIt said that while Neri is a defendant in the case pending before another division, he is not an accused in the Arroyo case as he was being called merely as an ordinary witness.
“Being an ordinary witness, Neri cannot, therefore, claim that the instant criminal cases are allegedly based on the same set of facts as the criminal case against him in another court,” the court said.
The court said there was no justification for Neri to disregard the subpoena it issued by invoking a generalized claim of right against self-incrimination.
It added that Neri may invoke this right when he is already on the witness stand during questioning but it is up to the court to make a ruling if indeed his statements would incriminate him.
