Lacson on Trillanes’ revelations: ‘No probative value’

MANILA, Philippines — Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Saturday said information revealed by former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV in connection with Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case has “no probative value.”

Trillanes on Friday held a press conference at which he revealed the contents of his testimony that was supposed to be presented to the Senate impeachment court.

This came after the House prosecution team announced that it would no longer present Trillanes as a witness on the alleged unexplained wealth charges against the vice president.

Article continues after this advertisement

In an interview with DWIZ 882, Lacson, a senator-judge, said Trillanes’ claims lacked probative value because they were made at a press conference.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: Trillanes links P319M China funds to firm of Sara Duterte’s husband

“It has no probative value. First of all, that was a press conference. Secondly, it isn’t even part of the court record. So, how could it possibly have probative value?” he explained when asked if Trillanes’ statement carried weight.

He added, “Now, it is up to the prosecution to present a witness who has the documents presented by Senator Trillanes.”

Among the allegations Trillanes raised were more than P319 million that CALE88 Foods Corp., a company linked to Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, received from the Chinese government and China-based corporations.

Article continues after this advertisement

For Lacson, if the former senator’s testimony were presented before the court, it would be met with objections.

“All I can say is that whether it takes place in an impeachment court or at a trial, I expect a barrage of objections from the defense—from the respondent’s side,” he said.

Article continues after this advertisement

From a general viewpoint, he said statements from individuals with no personal knowledge or competence regarding the matter usually encounter objections from counsel.

“Regarding the records, the source of those official records should be the one to testify — not relying on a third party, so to speak, who lacks personal knowledge,” he stated.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

He further explained: “Because if there is a source, we can call upon that very source to testify—someone competent enough to attest that these records originated from us, were prepared by us, and have been in our office, and that is what I am confirming.” /das