Prosecution, defense clash over Sara Duterte fund documents

MANILA, Philippines — The defense and prosecution panels in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Tuesday clashed over the documents to be used by the former as evidence on Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds.

Both parties tackled the issue during the start of the 14th day of the impeachment trial as Private Prosecutor Lorna Kapunan blasted the defense for supposedly “ignoring” them by not agreeing upon a schedule to possibly stipulate on the 4,492 acknowledgment receipts (ARs) that its next witness will be presented with.

This plan reflected an order issued by the Senate impeachment court itself on Wednesday.

READ: Impeachment court orders Sara Duterte camp to review CF documents

“Ito po ang nangyari. Na-Indian po kami. Why do I say that? Wednesday we made a text message: ‘When do we meet, Thursday or Friday?’ Wala pong sagot (This is what happened. We were ignored. Why do I say that? Wednesday, we sent a text message: ‘When do we meet, Thursday or Friday?’ There was no answer),” recounted Kapunan.

“On Thursday we waited the whole day. ‘Kelan tayo magmemeet Thursday na ngayon, Friday na bukas? (On Thursday we waited the whole day. ‘When will we meet Thursday or Friday tomorrow?’ Still no answer the whole day on Thursday), Wala pa ring sagot the whole day on Thursday,” she added.

READ: Prosecution calls out VP Duterte for attacking impeachment court’s integrity

The lawyer then claimed that the defense only replied right at the end of the workday on Thursday, stating that they were only available on August 14.

“August 14? What good will that do us? The hearing is today, August 10, and they want us to appear before the clerk of court on August 14. For what purpose?” Kapunan raised.

Kapunan also said the defense claimed the impeachment court had not specified the dates when the two camps would compare documents, which she rebuffed as being in “bad faith.”

“That is bad faith, because sinabi ng presiding officer ang specific dates (because the presiding officer specified the dates). Thursday or Friday last week,” she noted.

Because of the defense’s refusal to meet with the prosecution, Kapunan said they will have to go over the witness by invoking Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, particularly Section 7 and Section 3C on summaries and tabulations.

In response, the defense—without completely addressing supposedly ignoring the prosecution last week—agreed on Kapunan’s invocation of Rule 130, with defense counsel Kristine Ferrer stating: “at least we have aligned with what we are expected to do before this honorable court.”

Ferrer then underscored that there was no need to compare the exhibits in the first place because the authenticity of acknowledgement receipts was “up to the court to appreciate.”

“We don’t even need to compare the exhibits in order to expedite the proceedings because first of all, the authenticity of the documents is something for the court to decide and the court will only decide on that after the prosecution has already submitted their offer of evidence and that will be subject to our comment,” said Ferrer.

“There’s no need for us to actually compare the exhibits just so we can arrive at a stipulation that this and that are the same,” she added.

Ferrer then reiterated that the defense will not object to the prosecution’s implementation of Rule 130.

Meanwhile, Presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero corrected Kapunan in stating that they were ignored—or in Kapunan’s own words, “inindian”—claiming that they were instead “ghosted.”

He then directed both parties to submit their copies of the ARs to be presented with the witnesses to the court itself within Tuesday or Wednesday so the senator-judges can do the comparison themselves.

The exchange did not end there, however; after Kapunan continued to berate the defense, this time stating that the whole ordeal would have been avoided if they just agreed to her earlier proposal of letting the prosecution use the defense’s own copies of the documents.

But Escudero stated that the court considered her proposal too, but opted to have both parties furnish the court with their copies, which he said: “will solve many issues.”

Ferrer, for her part, said it wouldn’t matter if they let the prosecution use their documents as it will not make their witness competent.

“That is why we are here in open court to establish the competence, so kahit gamitin namin ‘yung exhibits namin kung hindi naman competent ‘yung witness niyo to identify those exhibits, it will still be a waste of time, it will still be useless (That is why we are here in open court to establish the competence, so even if we use our exhibits if your witness is not competent to identify those exhibits, it will still be a waste of time, it will still be useless),” said Ferrer. /mr