Tolosa: Rebutting dropped VP charges ‘waste of time and resources’

MANILA, Philippines — Allowing the proposal to let the defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte give a limited rebuttal on the three withdrawn impeachment articles would be “a complete waste of time and resources of the court and everyone involved.”

Lawyer Benjamin Tolosa Jr., House private prosecutor and legal spokesperson, stressed that point in a prosecution statement issued on Thursday, adding that the rebuttal would serve “no adjudicative purpose whatsoever.”

House private prosecutor and legal spokesperson Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. rejected the proposed middle ground of allowing Duterte’s lawyers to answer evidence already presented under the abandoned charges despite no longer submitting those articles for a verdict.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Prosecution: We saw VP Sara Duterte team’s ploy to delay trial

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

On Tuesday, Presiding Senator-Judge Francis Escudero allowed prosecutors to withdraw three of the four impeachment articles —  on confidential funds, bribery, and grave threats — and limited the remaining defense presentation to the second article on alleged unexplained wealth.

“Remember, because the ruling of the court is that the issues now will be confined to those relating to the unexplained wealth, then the evidence that should be presented should be confined to that,” Tolosa said.

Duterte’s lawyers argued that, for fairness, they should be allowed to counter evidence and testimony already heard publicly under the withdrawn articles even if the senator-judges would no longer vote on those charges.

Tolosa pointed to questioning of the defense on what legal purpose another evidentiary presentation would serve once the charges had been withdrawn.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Remember, the presiding officer asked the respondent: What would be the adjudicative purpose of presenting evidence with respect to the articles which have already been dropped? It was asked repeatedly, and defense counsel cannot answer it — went around in circles, but cannot answer it squarely,” Tolosa said.

“There is no adjudicative purpose whatsoever. What’s the purpose of that? Why would you present evidence for a matter that will not be ruled upon by the court?” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Prosec drops all but unexplained wealth charge vs Duterte

Tolosa noted that the defense had already been allowed to challenge prosecution witnesses while those articles were being heard.

“And it’s not true that they were not given an opportunity to challenge the evidence that we presented for those articles. They had an opportunity to cross-examine us,” he said.

“And second, as pointed out, they were given an opportunity actually to present their evidence already. On a per-article basis, they didn’t have to wait for us to finish the presentation of evidence for all articles,” he added.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The senator-judges will now have to determine whether any further presentation involving the withdrawn charges is necessary before the trial proceeds exclusively with Duterte’s defense in the second impeachment article. /atm