Sara Duterte camp: Prosecution evidence ‘inadmissible’ in Senate trial

MANILA, Philippines – Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team has asked the Senate impeachment court to reject the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, arguing that the records are inadmissible, irrelevant, and insufficient to establish her alleged impeachable offenses.

In a 26-page comment filed on Oct. 30, Duterte’s legal team challenged the prosecution’s Offer of Exhibits dated Oct. 20, which included financial records, Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), bank documents, corporate records, property documents, and reports from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

“As repeatedly put on record, respondent opposes the admissibility of all these so-called evidence,” the comment read.

Article continues after this advertisement

The defense argued that the prosecution’s evidence amounted to an “impermissible fishing expedition” and should therefore be considered “inadmissible as evidence.”

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“These exhibits were not attached to the Impeachment Complaints that the respondent was made to answer. Neither do they form part of the Articles of Impeachment,” the defense further added.

READ: Ridon: Senate unlikely to sustain Sara Duterte broad evidence objections

Duterte’s camp specifically challenged the prosecution’s use of AMLC records, including Covered Transaction Reports (CTRs), Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs), and financial intelligence reports.

Citing Section 8-A of Republic Act No. 11521, they argued that AMLC personnel are prohibited from revealing information they obtained in the course of their official duties.

Article continues after this advertisement

According to them, the AMLC records were inadmissible because of the alleged lack of evidentiary support and competent witness testimony.

On the SALNs presented before the court, Duterte’s camp claimed that records covering 2007 to 2021 were irrelevant because they pertained to a period before she became an impeachable officer.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Defenseless defense: Ridon says VP camp insisting on wrong arguments

It likewise challenged the prosecution’s use of bank records, arguing that these were obtained through what it described as a fishing expedition.

Moreover, the defense disputed the relevance of corporate records, including certificates of incorporation, General Information Sheets, and audited financial statements of several companies allegedly associated with Duterte, her husband Manases Carpio, and other individuals.

It argued that the identification of shareholders and the existence of corporate transactions did not establish that Duterte had a direct business interest or was involved in the alleged impeachable offenses.

As for the bank records, they also argued that the documents alone did not sufficiently identify who owned or controlled particular accounts or who was responsible for specific transactions.

Regarding the forensic examination report and related electronic documents, the defense described the materials as “nothing more than legal conclusions premised on false, erroneous assumptions, uncorroborated or confirmed by the witness.”

For House prosecutor Terry Ridon, the comment was a “blanket objection.”

Ridon said he could not understand why the defense panel continued to rely on the same arguments, despite their claims having been repeatedly refuted.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

In its prayer for relief, Duterte’s lawyers wrote, “It is respectfully prayed that the exhibits listed above be denied admission for each of the purposes for which they were offered.” /jpv