Madriaga is not a madman. But he is no saint either. He appears to be down on his luck and, as expected, may do what he must to survive. If he needs to double down on his role, so be it.

Getting involved in an impeachment controversy is no easy matter. If he had other options, he likely would not have done what he did. Few would willingly stand between contending political forces. But someone had to step forward — and that someone is often a person with little to lose.

At this stage, it is premature to conclude whether he is telling the truth. Those pushing for the impeachment of the Vice President may accept his statements at face value, even citing his emotional testimony as proof of credibility.

Those supporting Sara Duterte, on the other hand, have pointed to his past and present circumstances to question his motives and reliability.

Under the law, a witness’s credibility is tested in two ways: through direct examination, which seeks to establish and support his claims, and through cross-examination, where opposing counsel probes for bias, inconsistencies and weaknesses.

In Madriaga’s case, he appeared before a committee setting where he was allowed to present his account. However, unlike in a court trial, there was no full opportunity for adversarial questioning that could rigorously test his claims.

For now, everything remains evidentiary. Until he is subjected to a full trial where his testimony can be examined and challenged, it is premature to declare his statements either credible or fabricated.

The author notes being mentioned in the controversy, after Madriaga alleged that duffel bags were delivered to Nommu upon the instruction of Atty. Reynold Munsayac. This claim has been denied, with contrary evidence presented. It was also asserted that on 20 December 2022, the date cited in the allegation, a private event was held at the restaurant, attended by many people.

Ultimately, until a formal judicial process takes place, caution is warranted. Opinions may be expressed, but conclusions should await proper scrutiny and verification of the evidence.