Prosecution, defense teams clash anew on Sara Duterte’s bank records

MANILA, Philippines — The opposing parties in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial clashed on Monday over the House prosecution panel’s request to admit her bank records into evidence.

During the 30th day of the trial, House prosecution panel member Chel Diokno bared that they submitted a request for admission last week in an effort to determine what evidence is “truly being disputed” without having to waste the court’s time on matters not even considered controversial.

READ: Impeachment court grants subpoena for Duterte’s financial records

Article continues after this advertisement

According to Diokno, the request covered records “produced and submitted directly by several banks” in compliance with several subpoenas issued by the Senate impeachment court.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“Among others, the respondent was simply requested to admit or deny the existence or genuineness and authenticity of these bank records,” said Diokno.

However, Diokno said the defense objected to the request, arguing that Rule 26—which contains the rules on requests for admission—is supposedly inapplicable to impeachment proceedings, which it said is penal in character.

The defense also argued that requiring Duterte to answer the request would violate her right against self incrimination.

Diokno then called on court presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis “Chiz” Escudero to overrule the objection, stating that none of the grounds they raised justified the rejection of the request.

Article continues after this advertisement

The prosecutor disputed the defense’s arguments, including their assertion that Rule 26 is inapplicable, by stating that an impeachment trial is neither an ordinary civil action nor a criminal prosecution.

“It is, as we repeatedly said, a sui generis constitutional proceeding governed principally by the rules of the senate sitting as an impeachment court,” said Diokno.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Where those rules do not specifically provide otherwise, the rules of court may be applied suppletorily, subject to the control and discretion of the court,” he added.

He also pointed out that the request does not violate Duterte’s rights against self incrimination as she is not being required to take the witness’ stand before the court, nor is she being compelled to give an oral confession or create evidence that is not already available to the parties.

Diokno also insisted that their request does not shift the burden of proof, explaining that an admission dispenses with proof of a matter that is “no longer genuinely disputed.”

“It has absolutely no effect on who has the burden of proof,” said Diokno.

In response, lead defense counsel Sheila Sison reiterated that the law has consistently applied and recognized an individual’s right to self incrimination and the right to remain silent—even in mere administrative proceedings.

This means the same should be respected in an impeachment case, regardless whether or not it is a sui generis or unique proceeding.

“Because the court has long recognized that an impeachment trial is highly penal in character,” said Sison.

The defense lawyer also noted that the marking of the bank documents has yet to even begin.

Meanwhile, in an effort to avoid unnecessary delay and disagreement, Diokno proposed withdrawing the request so long as the defense would agree to the following:

• That the bank records exist
• That they were produced by the identified banks pursuant to subpoenas issued by this honorable court
• That they were genuine and authentic copies maintained and produced by banks

“We will withdraw our request for admission, if the respondent agrees to this,” said Diokno.

Sison, however, acknowledged the proposed compromise, but stated that the request for stipulation should be tackled “in the appropriate time.”

With this, Escudero instead told Diokno to submit the proposal in writing to the court.

“After submission, the court will make a ruling on the matter even if you’re considering withdrawing it even should the stipulation be made, in order to guide the parties prospectively: how to approach this matter, this issue and hopefully, also serve as a persuasive basis in future impeachment courts,” said Escudero.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“So the court will not disregard the motion or the objection, even if it is withdrawn later,” he added, further stating that the court will issue the decision within the week. /jpv