Prosec scores in bunches as Senate court denies several defense motions

MANILA, Philippines — It appears that the House of Representatives’ prosecution team has more than made up for its allegedly subpar showing on the first day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, as the Senate Impeachment Court turned down several motions made by the defense panel.

During the second day of the impeachment trial on Tuesday, defense lawyer Carlo Joaquin Narvasa objected to the presentation of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, as he was not listed in the Saballa and Cabrera impeachment complaint and in the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House.

Private counsel for the prosecutor, Amando Ligutan, who was set to cross-examine Calilung, reminded Narvasa that the Saballa complaint has already run its course and only became a basis for the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House.

Article continues after this advertisement

“May we move for the exclusion of Agent Calilung for being not previously attached to the Saballa and Cabrera complaints, as well as exclusion on the ground that he was not included in the Articles of Impeachment transmitted to the Senate Impeachment Court,” Narvasa said.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“In this stage of the proceedings the prosecution is about to present a witness and the defense is invoking the fact that this witness was not listed as one of the witnesses in the Saballa complaint.  The Saballa complaint already lived its natural life, your Honor, this is the impeachment proceeding of the Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives,” Ligutan replied.

“The good counsel mentioned that it is not part, this witness is not part of the Articles of Impeachment.  Your Honor please, I have been practicing for quite some time, I don’t see that.  It’s not a ground and in fact your Honor please, to settle the matter, this witness is listed in the pre-trial order, the issue is settled, the issue is passé, no ground for objection, let me proceed your Honor,” he added.

READ: Losing on Day 1? Holding impeachment trial is already a huge victory – Luistro

Narvasa tried to object again, but presiding officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero noted a previous Supreme Court decision which allows prosecutors to add evidence or witnesses apart from what was included in an Information — in this case, the Articles of Impeachment.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The motion to exclude by the counsel for respondent is hereby denied, chair sites Enrile vs Sandiganbayan which states that ‘the prosecutors may add or rely on evidence during pre-trial even if the evidence is not stated in the complaint or articles, because only a summary is required to be stated, and the articles of impeachment in this case and/or complaint and not a complete list of the prosecution’s evidence and/or witnesses,” Escudero said.

“The court in general will not shackle the prosecution by limiting it to the evidence mentioned in the Information or the Articles of Impeachment, especially when it is mentioned in the pre-trial brief, not only order, but brief of the counsel of the prosecutors,” he added.

Article continues after this advertisement

The defense panel has been adamant even before the trial that witnesses who are not part of the complaints may not be included in the Articles of Impeachment, and therefore must not be presented during the trial.

Win streak

But that was not the important only win that the prosecution scored on Tuesday: hours later, the defense opposed a move to play a portion of the online press conference last November 23, 2024, where Duterte threatened President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.

Ligutan was asking Calilung to authenticate a portion of the video clip — two minutes and 18 seconds of a two hour and 10 second video — but Narvasa claimed that a rule requires that the entire video, if a clip will be admitted as evidence, to be played.

“Your Honor, under Rule 132, when part of a transaction, writing, or record given in evidence, the remainder must be shown.  When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into,” Narvasa said.

“And when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or record necessary to its understanding must be given into evidence.  Your Honor, we request that the entire video be played,” he added.

But Ligutan said Narvasa made a “misreading” of the rules, as the rules state that if the prosecution will present a portion of a video clip, the defense has the right to show the entirety of the video clip.

“If we read Section 17 of Rule 132, it says ‘when part of transaction, writing, or record given in evidence, the remainder is admissible.  When parts of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record, when part is given by one party’ — and in this case that is the prosecution — ‘the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other side’,” Ligutan said.

“This rule, Section 17, Rule 132, allows exactly the prosecution to present a two-minute portion of a two-hour video subject to the defense, the presentation of the remainder of the same. Number two, we invoke your Honor, please, the ruling.  That it is for the prosecution to decide what to present, when to present, how to present, and whether to present at all,” he added.

The prosecution also scored when House prosecutor and Iloilo Rep. Lorenz Defensor made a manifestation before presenting the witness for Article IV.  Defensor’s presentation was opposed by Narvasa, who claimed that the prosecution was narrating or telling a story.

But Defensor said that the prosecution should be allowed to advocate their position.

“Allow us to freely advocate our positions through the proper and respectful discourse.  This is not prohibited under the rules, in fact the court has declared that yesterday, the rules will not comply with the strict procedures of a judicial proceeding,” he said.

“Each article is a separate complaint and it will be the proper guidance for the senator-judges lalo na po sa ating mga kapwa Pilipino na nanonood para mas lalo nilang maunawaan ang ipe-presenta naming ebidensya,” he added.

READ: Sara Duterte’s kill remark vs Marcos is ‘active threat’ – Palace

Escudero also allowed Defensor to make his presentation, albeit with a reminder to his fellow senator-judges that the public prosecutor statements must not be given evidentiary weight.

Tuesday’s trial focused on the allegations that Duterte threatened the Marcos couple and Romualdez, which happened during an online press briefing last November 23, 2024.

Duterte held a briefing on that day, after visiting her chief-of-staff, Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, who was then detained inside the House premises.

Lopez was cited for contempt by the House committee on good government and public accountability, for supposedly committing undue interference during the panel’s investigation of the alleged confidential fund misuse within Duterte’s offices.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

As she was infuriated over Lopez’s detention and subsequent attempts to transfer her, Duterte badmouthed the Marcos couple and Romualdez.  At one point, Duterte was asked if she is concerned about her security; she replied by urging people not to worry since she had contracted an assassin to kill the three if she herself gets killed. /jpv