House Prosecution reserves psychiatrist as witness to probe grave threats in impeachment

MANILA, Philippines — Lawmakers from the House prosecution panel have revealed that a medical expert, specifically a psychiatrist, has been lined up as a reserve witness for the high-profile impeachment trial. The announcement was made during a press conference at the House of Representatives, where panel members detailed the strategic legal steps being taken to substantiate the charges of grave threats.

The inclusion of a psychiatric expert aims to provide an objective assessment of the accused's statements, ensuring the court can properly gauge the intent and impact behind the alleged utterances.

During the briefing, prosecutors emphasized that proving the seriousness of verbal or written intimidation requires professional, clinical insights that go beyond simple interpretation.

Atty. Benjamin Tolosa, Jr., a private prosecutor assisting the panel, explained the relevance of the expert testimony:

"This witness will be relevant in establishing the charges... particularly here, the charge concerning grave threats," Atty. Tolosa said. "It could establish a lot of things. Among other things will be the seriousness of the threats... the fact that when it was made, it was not made in jest."

Atty. Tolosa argued that an expert evaluation is essential to mapping out a pattern of behaviour. By examining the precise words used, the individual's actuations, and their conduct before, during, and after the incident, the witness can help prove whether there was a deliberate intention to inflict psychological distress or signal real harm to the recipients.

Rep. Zia Alonto-Adiong further emphasized the necessity of clinical objectivity when evaluating the evidence:

"The psychology—psychiatrist would be objective in trying to respond to the question of either the defense and the prosecution," Rep. Adiong added during the session. "We can establish an expert analysis as to the seriousness... Nobody can actually be able to establish the seriousness of these threats other than, I guess, someone who has the expertise to objectively assess the utterances."