Checkmate? Barbers says evidence vs VP Sara hard to counter

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte has been checkmated in her impeachment trial as the evidence presented against her is hard to debunk and dispute, prosecution panel spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers said on Tuesday.

Barbers, in a press briefing, said it is hard to fathom how the documents and testimonies from government officials will be refuted once Duterte’s lawyers get the chance to present their own evidence and witnesses before the Senate impeachment court.

“Well para sa akin, yes, checkmate. Bakit? ’Yon nga ang aking paniwala, napakahirap pasinungalingan (ng ebidensya). Kung ika-counter mo lang naman ’yong mga testigong iniharap natin, ang tanong, saan kaya at sino kaya ’yang mga ’yan?” Barbers asked.

Article continues after this advertisement

(Well, for me, yes, checkmate. Why? Because I believe it will be hard to refute the evidence. If you will counter the witnesses presented, the question is, who will you field and what evidence will they present?)

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The spokesperson, a former lawmaker from Surigao del Norte, said that even Duterte’s alibi that she was not aware of the business transactions and investment made by her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, will not stand against the prosecution’s evidence.

“’Yon ang ine-expect na madidinig natin, ano, na hindi rin nila alam. Maaaring kung ang usapin ay tungkol doon sa joint account, gaya doon sa direct examination at sa cross, lumabas doon na hindi alam ng Pangalawang Pangulo ’yong mga investments o pera na ayon sa bank records ay pera ni Atty. Mans Carpio, ay wala rin siyang alam,” Barbers said.

(That is what we expect to hear from them, that they do not know. Maybe that will be the case when the discussion shifts to the issue of joint accounts, because it came out during the direct examination and the cross (examination) that the Vice President does not know the investments or funds mentioned in the bank records of Atty. Mans Carpio.)

“So I don’t know ano’ng weight no’ng gano’n klaseng testimony o gano’n klaseng statement doon sa bigat ng kaso na sinusuportahan ng mga ebidensyang inilatag ng prosecution. So sa aking paniwala, again, I would go back to the question—talagang checkmate ito kung tutusin,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

(So I don’t know what will be the weight of such testimony or statements against the gravity of the case and evidence presented by the prosecution. So in my belief, again, I would go back to the question—I think we have a checkmate here.)

Barbers held a press briefing to refresh the public about the impeachment trial, which was adjourned last Oct. 13. It will resume on Nov. 9, with the defense scheduled to present their evidence and witnesses for Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.

Article continues after this advertisement

Article II, which is the lone charge left as the prosecution withdrew the three other articles, deals with Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth and her non-disclosure of other assets in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

Covering possible strategies

According to Barbers, possible counter-arguments to the evidence presented by the prosecution have been cut off, like insinuations from the defense that Duterte’s cash on hand and cash in bank were declared in her SALN, through the “others” category.

However, Barbers said that even if this was true, the ending balances of Duterte and Carpio’s bank accounts or the final balance before year-end exceeded the amount stated in her SALNs.

“Makikita natin na ang kanilang dineclare sa kanilang SALN, sa others or other personal properties, ay umabot lamang ng P21.13 million pesos sa taong 2024. Pero ang pera sa bangko, ’yong sinasabing ending balance […] ay umabot ng P22.24 million,” Barbers said.

(We can see that with what they declared in the SALN, under others or other personal properties, it only reached P21.13 million in 2024. But the funds inside their bank accounts, the so-called ending balance […] reached P22.24 million.)

“Ngayon ang tanong, sa isang taon lang ba nila ginawa ito? Ito ba ay nangyari lamang no’ng 2024? Base sa datos na nakita natin at sa records na iprinesenta before the impeachment court, makikita natin na mula pa no’ng 2022, ang kanilang dineklarang ‘others’ o ‘yong kanilang cash na sinasabi nilang nasa ‘others’ ay nakakahalaga ng P13 million. Pero ayon sa mga bangko […] P59 million ’yong kanilang (ending) balance,” he added.

(Now the question is, did they do this for a year only? Did this happen in 2024 only? Based on the date we saw and the records presented before the impeachment court, it happened since 2022; they declared ‘others’ or the case under ‘others’ amounted to P13 million. But banks said they had […] a P59 million [ending] balance.)

Barbers stressed this will be hard to dispute because their evidence came from the documents submitted by the Duterte-Carpio couple, like the SALN, and bank and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) records.

To begin with, Barbers said that placing cash on bank and cash on hand under “others” is already a violation, as stated by former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang.

“Malinaw din, malinaw pa sa sikat ng araw na wala […] silang dineklarang cash on hand at saka cash in bank. At ito ay sinabi nga ni Justice Cabotaje-Tang, separate item ito at dapat ito ay fini-fill up-an, hindi ito pwedeng i-lump doon sa item called ‘others’,” he noted.

(The truth that they did not declare any cash on hand and cash on bank is brighter than the sun. And Justice Cabotaje-Tang said that this should have been a separate item and this should be filled out, and not lumped with the item called ‘others.’)

“Assuming na ito na pwede mong ilagay sa ‘others’, assuming lang—although hindi ’yon ang sinasabi ng SALN, ng batas—assuming na inilagay nila sa others ’yan, eh hindi pa rin tugma doon sa balances na according sa mga bangko ay sobra-sobra doon sa dineklara nilang amount doon sa ‘others’,” he added.

(Assuming that you can place it under ‘others’—we’re only assuming because that is not what the law on SALN states—assuming that they placed it under others, it still doesn’t match the balances, as according to the banks, their ending balances exceeded the declared amount under ‘others.’)

During the same briefing, Barbers said that even if the defense floats a prenuptial agreement between Duterte and Carpio, the evidence presented during her impeachment trial is enough to merit a conviction.

READ: Barbers: Prenup or not, evidence vs Sara Duterte enough to convict her

A prenuptial agreement is usually signed by couples before marriage, indicating what part of their assets, debts, and other financial matters do not become intertwined—in contrast to the common occurrence where marriage causes the couple to have communal property.

READ: Kapunan: VP Duterte, Manases prenup, if any, will face scrutiny

Prosecutors have refused to comment on the strength of their evidence against Duterte so as not to violate the sub judice rule, but their spokespersons have expressed confidence in the case that they built.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Barbers himself said that while dropping three out of four articles of impeachment is a huge risk—as the entire case would now rely on the strength of Article II—the fact that they took that step shows how confident they are. —With reports from Katherine Cielo Guimera, trainee