As borne out by the records, petitioner did not register any objection to the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence particularly on the testimony of Cinco despite the absence of an interpreter. Moreover, it has not been shown that the lack of an interpreter greatly prejudiced him. Still and all, the important thing is that petitioner, through counsel, was able to fully cross-examine Cinco and the other witnesses and test their credibility. The right to confrontation is essentially a guarantee that a defendant may cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution (Ho Wai Pang vs. People, G.R. No. 176229. October 19, 2011).
Monday, October 31, 2011
Right to Confrontation / Interpreter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment