Manila: The House prosecution panel on Thursday expressed frustration over the delays in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, attributing the slowdown to the defense's persistent refusal to stipulate documentary evidence. The issue revolves around the PHP612.5 million in confidential funds that are currently under examination.
According to Philippines News Agency, Lawyer Benjamin 'Jay' Tolosa Jr., who serves as the legal spokesperson and counsel for the House panel of prosecutors, refrained from speculating on whether these delays were intentional. He emphasized, however, that regardless of the intent, the delays were evident and problematic. Tolosa pointed out several interruptions during the presentation of documentary evidence, including a particularly lengthy recess during the testimony of Commission on Audit (COA) State Auditor Roderick Wamil, as well as similar interruptions during the testimony of COA Supervising Auditor Xylene Mae Del Campo.
The prosecution team is tasked with presenting financial and liquidation records, such as acknowledgment receipts, which cover the PHP612.5 million in confidential funds allocated to Duterte's Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) across 2022 and 2023. They argue that agreeing on stipulations for documents already possessed by both parties would remove the necessity to identify each exhibit individually, thus expediting the trial.
Lead prosecutor Gerville 'Jinky Bitrics' Luistro of Batangas 2nd District noted that the defense was given an additional opportunity to review and compare the documents prior to Monday's hearing. She questioned why the defense would not stipulate if the documents from both sides were identical. Luistro stated that the prosecution is ready to employ the defense's own documentary evidence if stipulations are not reached, a strategy previously mentioned by prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan.
In addition, Lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan, another counsel for the House prosecutors, challenged the defense's argument suggesting that the documents presented by COA auditors might differ from those submitted by the OVP and DepEd. He found the argument unusual since the documents originated from the Office of the Vice President and DepEd themselves. Ligutan noted that the defense had already declined to stipulate during the pretrial and had been given another chance this week. He refrained from speculating whether the defense was intentionally delaying the proceedings.
