I AM not a lawyer, but from where I stand, it looks as though the defense is either self-sabotaging or setting up Vice President Sara Duterte’s case to fail. Whatever the strategy is, it is failing miserably. Blunder after blunder.
Take yesterday’s exchange, for example. Defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan appeared to be carefully setting up what he probably thought would be his strongest ammunition against National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melving Matibag. The line of questioning seemed calculated: If the NBI had already reached its findings, wouldn’t it simply file another impeachment complaint against the vice president? Lead public prosecutor Gerville Luistro immediately objected. She saw the trap the defense was trying to set. But then something interesting happened. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero allowed Director Matibag to answer. Watching the exchange, one could not help but notice what appeared to be a knowing smile from the presiding officer, as though he already knew where the answer was headed. And Director Matibag did not disappoint. What happened next was a lethal mistake by the defense team. As director Matibag answered Atty. Vinluan’s questions, you could almost sense that the defense realized it had made a mistake. Instead of weakening the impeachment case, the questioning seemed to strengthen it. His answer went straight to the heart of the impeachment case. Under the prosecution’s constitutional theory, another impeachment complaint was unnecessary because the alleged betrayal of public trust had already been consummated the moment the vice president publicly made the statements at issue. The issue was never whether an alleged assassination plot was eventually carried out. The issue was whether the vice president’s own public declarations and conduct, if established, already constituted a betrayal of public trust. Instead of damaging the prosecution’s case, the answer reinforced its constitutional theory. Director Matibag explained that the constitutional question is whether those public statements and that conduct, by themselves, constitute a betrayal of public trust. It is almost painful and satisfying to watch, depending on which side you are on, how Atty. Vinluan, who probably was thinking “sana lamunin ako ng lupa” after realizing his mistake, panicked and rushed to have the answers stricken off the record. Representative Luistro, with a naughty smile, objected.In trying to corner the witness, the defense ended up giving him the perfect opportunity to explain the prosecution’s case in the clearest possible terms.If that was the defense’s strongest punch, it landed squarely on its own chin. If I were in the vice president’s shoes, I would seriously be asking whether my legal team is helping or hurting my case. Day after day, the defense seems to be making arguments that only make the prosecution’s case easier for the public to understand. In fact, every hearing makes the impeachment complaint look clearer. The more the witnesses testify and the more the lawyers argue, the easier it becomes to see what the case is really about. Angel Santos