THE defense and prosecution teams traded barbs over the weekend as both sides prepared for the resumption of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, which will mark its 40th day on Monday.
The camp of Vice President Sara Duterte on Saturday accused the House prosecution panel of peddling “half-truths and malicious speculation” in its efforts to build an impeachment case against her.
In a statement, Duterte spokesman Salvador Paolo Panelo Jr. accused prosecutors of disregarding due process and fairness, claiming they were trying to sway public opinion through press briefings and interviews.
“We apparently live in two worlds. One where due process and fairness still reign — where an accused is not condemned before she is heard, and where allegations must be proven with clear and convincing evidence presented in court,” Panelo said.
He took aim at lead private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and her colleagues, accusing them of relying on “asinine sound bites” to persuade the public.
“The prosecution had its chance. It failed. On Monday, the vice president begins her defense,” Panelo said.
House prosecution panel member Rep. Terry Ridon, however, challenged the camp’s assertion, questioning why the defense planned to present more than 20 witnesses if prosecutors had supposedly failed to prove their case.
“Denial is the first stage of accepting defeat. If the prosecution truly failed, why does the defense need to stack more than 20 witnesses next week to stage its defense?” Ridon told The Manila Times.
“If we failed, the defense should have outright moved for a decision solely on the basis of the prosecution’s supposed evidence,” he added, describing Panelo’s statement as “a bit deluded.”
Duterte’s defense is scheduled to begin presenting its evidence before the Senate Impeachment Court on Monday, Nov. 9.
Witnesses, not weaknesses, Ridon said House prosecutors will challenge the relevance of Vice President Duterte’s defense witnesses, particularly those who may be unable to address the allegations of unexplained wealth.
“We need witnesses, not weaknesses, from those the defense will present in the coming days,” Ridon said at the Saturday News Forum in Quezon City ahead of the impeachment trial’s resumption on Monday, Nov. 9.
The defense has listed 24 prospective witnesses, including bank officials, corporate representatives and local government personnel.
Ridon questioned whether they could address the prosecution’s financial evidence point by point, particularly the alleged P800 million in unexplained wealth.
“I don’t know if he knows anything about the P800 million,” he said of Quezon City Prosecutor Vimar Barcellano, whose inclusion in the list he questioned.
House prosecution legal spokesman and private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. also questioned the purpose of some witnesses, saying the defense had not explained what they would testify about.
Tolosa said he expected the Davao City treasurer to explain payments or compensation Duterte may have received from the local government during her vice presidency.
Ridon questioned the need for bank officials to testify, arguing that their appearance would not change the balances reflected in official records.
“What matters is — whether the person summoned is a bank manager, branch manager, bank official or bank lawyer — the contents of the bank account do not change,” he said.
Tolosa said prosecutors were willing to stipulate on undisputed matters to avoid delays, particularly if bank representatives were called only to identify letters allegedly sent by Duterte or her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
“We don’t see any need to belabor the point. We can just stipulate on those matters to speed things up,” he said.
Ridon said prosecutors would give the defense sufficient latitude but would object to irrelevant testimony and cross-examine its witnesses.
“If the defense is good at objecting to the prosecution’s direct testimony, the prosecution will also be good at objecting when it is the defense’s turn to present evidence,” he said.
