Kapunan: VP Duterte defense has no reason to avoid tackling evidence

MANILA, Philippines — The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte has no reason to avoid addressing the prosecution’s evidence already submitted to the Senate impeachment court when the trial resumes on Nov. 9.

In a statement on Friday, private prosecutor Lorna Kapuna pointed out that the court had already affirmed the admissibility of key evidence presented by the prosecution.

But the evidence would exclude documents from the Commission on Audit (COA), which the court rejected as evidence in a Nov. 5 ruling, saying they had already been presented for the first impeachment article, on the vice president’s alleged misuse of confidential funds, which the prosecution already dropped.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Impeach court junks plea to admit COA docs as proof in ‘unexplained wealth’

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Still, Kapunan welcomed the impeachment court’s ruling rejecting the defense’s general objections to the admissibility of other evidence presented in connection with the second articles of impeachment, dealing with alleged unexplained wealth.

In its objection before the court, the defense team branded the prosecution’s move to secure evidence through the issuance of subpoenas by the court as a “fishing expedition.”

Kapunan explained that the evidence need not be attached to a complaint in legal proceedings, in this case, the impeachment articles.

“Because a complaint must only have what are called ultimate facts. Ultimate facts: who, what, where, when, how,” Kapunan said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The documents presented are called evidentiary facts — evidence. So, the presiding officer [Senator-Judge Francis Escudero] said it was not a violation that not all of the documents were attached. As you have seen, we had how many boxes? Those 52 boxes of evidence, will they have to be attached to the complaint?” she added.

As to the “fishing expedition” claim of the defense, Kapunan pointed out that the issuance of subpoenas is part of the process in court proceedings.

Article continues after this advertisement

“That is the nature of the beast. That’s what a subpoena means. Produce documents so we will know whether the allegations of the prosecution are true or not. So it is not a fishing expedition. It is within the power of the impeachment court to issue subpoenas to produce documents,” Kapunan said.

READ: Luistro: No ‘fishing expedition’ in wealth case vs VP Duterte

Even the financial documents and records of Duterte before she assumed the vice president position were also admitted by the impeachment court, which Kapunan explained was to establish a baseline on her income and net worth.

During its presentation of witnesses and evidence, the prosecution produced records of the investments made by Duterte over the years.

“So all the records have been admitted. All the evidence, testimonial and documentary, has been admitted by the impeachment court through the presiding officer,” Kapunan said.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Admissibility is different from probative value. It doesn’t mean that just because the presiding officer admitted the evidence that it’s true. They will have to weigh its probative value. What’s the weight of this evidence? Is this meritorious to explain unexplained wealth? So, admissibility is not a ruling on the probative value or on the merits of the evidence itself,” she added. /atm