Luistro on VP trial: Defense did not agree to alternating presentations

MANILA, Philippines — The House prosecution in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial agreed to alternating presentations with the defense, as suggested by Senator-Judge Bam Aquino, but the defense did not.

The lead prosecutor, Rep. Gerville Luistro, pointed this out on Tuesday, saying that the arrangement could have addressed the concerns that the defense raised over three withdrawn impeachment articles against the vice president.

Luistro raised the earlier proposal during the debate over whether the defense could still present evidence concerning the withdrawn articles. 

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: From 4 to 1: Impeachment court OKs reduced raps vs Sara Duterte

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Under the proposed sequence, the defense would have answered an article after the prosecution presented its case on that charge.

“We conform to that proposal or suggestion of the Honorable Senator-Judge Bam Aquino, and it was the defense who did not agree to the alternate presentation of articles,” Luistro said.

The arrangement was not adopted, and the trial proceeded under the existing rules.

“That alternate presentation of articles should have resolved the dilemma, the predicament that the defense is raising right now,” she said.

Article continues after this advertisement

Presiding Senator-Judge Francis Escudero recalled the proposal while discussing the defense’s demand to be heard on allegations that the prosecution had withdrawn. 

He said the proposed sequence would have allowed the respondent to answer each article before a possible withdrawal later

Article continues after this advertisement

“The respondent would have been heard right after the presentation of an article,” Escudero said.

“And should they decide to withdraw later on, then both sides would have been heard already,” he added.

READ: Court lifts sub judice rule on dropped impeachment articles

Escudero said the alternative required the agreement of both parties. With no agreement reached, the court followed the existing procedure.

“But the court decided to follow the rules given that there was no agreement between the parties,” he said.

The distinction mattered after the court accepted the prosecution’s withdrawal of the first, third, and fourth impeachment articles, leaving only the second article for trial. 

The withdrawn articles will no longer be submitted for a conviction or an acquittal verdict.

Aquino asked whether the defense wanted the articles retained or preferred to consult Duterte about the effect of their withdrawal. 

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Escudero explained that the prosecution had requested the withdrawal and the court had ruled on it. /atm