(UPDATE) MANILA, Philippines — Prosecutors from the House of Representatives on Thursday defended private counsel Amando Virgil Ligutan and insisted he did not violate the sub judice rule by posting an explanation of the prohibition on misleading questions.
In a press briefing, prosecution spokesman Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said Ligutan’s post contained no falsehood, malice or intent to disrespect the Senate Impeachment Court after defense lawyers accused him of commenting on a contentious exchange during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday.
“In our opinion, we don't see anything wrong with that,” Tolosa said in Filipino as he pointed out that Ligutan merely stated a basic evidentiary rule and did not attempt to influence how senator-judges should decide the case.
“Did he say anything that wasn't true? Not at all. It was just guidance with respect to an elementary evidentiary rule,” he added.
He further noted that leading questions, which suggest the answer sought by a lawyer, were generally allowed during cross-examination, while misleading questions that assume unestablished facts or contradict testimony were prohibited.
Tolosa likewise rejected claims that Ligutan’s post was intended to insult a lawyer or member of the impeachment court.
“It was not made with malice. He did not intend to disrespect anyone. Again, it’s just a statement of an elementary evidentiary rule,” he said.
Meanwhile, House prosecutor and Akbayan party-list Rep. Chel Diokno said the sub judice rule did not bar all discussion of a pending case, including factual accounts of hearings or explanations of legal principles.
"The only thing prohibited is any statements that are intended to influence the outcome of the case," Diokno said.
“I think that both sides should have that opportunity to speak about the case, as long as it is within the limits imposed by the law," he added.
Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co joined the fray, accusing the Defense team of allegedly misleading the impeachment trial.by arguing that misleading questions should be allowed, "clearly showing its strategy for the entire proceedings."
She also criticized Duterte for allegedly refusing to recognize the institutional process being afforded to her by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
“What can we expect from a defense panel whose client apparently does not recognize the institutional process being afforded to her?” Co said.
Co questioned Duterte’s claim that the impeachment court was bending the law, saying the vice president should instead appear before the Senate and raise her concerns during the trial.
Co said the impeachment court should instead scrutinize Duterte over her questionable spending of confidential and intelligence funds.
“Ultimately, if there is someone the Impeachment Court should call out, it is VP Sara herself,” Co said.
“One court, one standard. If it is prohibited to disrespect the Impeachment Court, it should be prohibited for everyone,” Co said.
Castro: Misleading questions are not allowed
Meanwhile, Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro reacted to the debacle that ensued during the cross-examinations at the Senate impeachment trial, saying “misleading questions are not allowed.” This comes after private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said at the impeachment trial, that "misleading questions are not allowed on cross-examination."
“This is so basic; misleading questions are not allowed,” she asserted.
Castro emphasized that while cross-examination allowed counsel leeway to test witness credibility, misleading questions were strictly prohibited under the rules.
