Duterte trial may be shorter; defense seems to have no evidence – Chua

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial might be shorter than previously expected due to several factors, including the possibility that her lawyers do not have any witness or evidence to present.

This is the view of two members of the prosecution team expressed on Thursday.

In a press briefing, House prosecutor Manila Rep. Joel Chua and counsel for the prosecution Lorna Kapunan were asked what they intend to do to shorten the trial period as there were initial statements that the proceedings can take as long as 17 months.

Article continues after this advertisement

Chua explained that the 17 month estimate was only based on the requested trial dates of both the prosecution and the defense, but he thinks it will not be wholly consumed.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

He cited as one of the reasons the prosecution’s decision to withdraw all but one of its witnesses for Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment.

“You know, the 17 months period that they were talking about – these were only the total of requested trial dates from both the public and private (lawyers). But it does not follow that we will consume all of it,” Chua said.

“In fact, even with witnesses, we placed dates for all of them, but we will only use the witnesses that we think will be useful for us,” he added.

“Like for example, here in Article IV – we placed in our pretrial brief the sheriff, Atty. Zuleika (Lopez), and other individuals. But you saw that only three witnesses will be fielded,” he told reporters.

Article continues after this advertisement

“And after Atty. (Melvin) Matibag, we’re done. Why? Because based on our observation, and based on our studies, we have met the quantum of evidence that we want to present,” he noted.

Aside from the possibility of presenting two witnesses in a day for certain scenarios, Chua said that Kapunan’s belief that the defense has no witnesses or evidence may also shorten trial.

Article continues after this advertisement

“So that if this is what will happen, our trial will be shorter,” he said.

“Aside from what Atty. Kapunan mentioned — because maybe, the defense won’t present (their witness). If this happens, then the trial dates will be fewer,” he pointed out.

“So all of these are possibilities. We may be done by September or October,” Chua concluded.

Chua was referring to Kapunan’s statement on the decision of the Senate Impeachment Court to have the prosecution present its case first on all four articles before the defense gets its turn.

According to Kapunan, this is good because the people can see the evidence — or the lack thereof — of the defense, because Duterte’s lawyers previously said that they do not need to present evidence.

“They have repeatedly said that they don’t have to present evidence. The defense said that there is the presumption of innocence; that after the articles from the prosecution, they might not need to present (before) judgment,” Kapunan said.

“So it will be good if the people can see the strength of the four articles and each Article of Impeachment,” she noted.

“After that, the defense will have their turn — not to preempt their strategy, but if they will not present anyone, we may not reach Christmas or Valentine’s Day,” she estimated.

“We may finish this by the next month, if no evidence is shown by the defense,” she said.

Prosecution not to blame

Kapunan also reminded the public that the trial’s length is not solely dependent on the prosecution since the defense also does cross-examination.

She stressed that it is the defense’s cross-examination that lengthened the time needed to quiz the prosecution’s two witnesses.

“It’s not only up to the prosecution because as you saw with the last two witnesses, what lengthened the proceedings was cross-examination. The prosecution did not take a lot of time to do its direct examination,” Kapunan recalled.

It has been six days since Duterte’s trial started, and the pace has been observed to be slow.

Out of the six days, only one day — the first day — was dedicated solely to administrative matters; another day for oral arguments; and four days to examine two prosecution witnesses from the National Bureau of Investigation regarding Article IV or the grave threats allegations.

However, the prosecution announced on Thursday that they are pulling out six witnesses for Article IV, as the case is supposedly already strong:

Representatives from Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives office

Reuters reporter Mikhail Flores

Rappler reporter Bonz Magsambol

Former Sheriff Abe Andres

Family member of a victim of threats

A psychiatrist

The PNP representative in the list would have attested to the ability of Duterte to carry out the threats.

The reporters were present during the November 23, 2024 online press briefing where the Vice President said that she has talked to someone about killing President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.

Andres, the relative of a person threatened, and the psychiatrist were all supposed to testify on Duterte’s alleged tendencies to be violent.

READ: Prosec won’t call sheriff, reporters as witnesses in impeach trial anymore

On Tuesday, Kapunan announced that they will no longer present Office of the Vice President (OVP) Chief of Staff and Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez as a witness for the impeachment trial.

The counsel said Lopez’s testimony has become unnecessary and a surplus.

Along with Lopez, Kapunan said they will no longer call Capt. Belinda Bello of the House Legislative Security Bureau to the witness stand.

She believes it will be redundant to the examinations of two NBI officials, Senior Agent John Mark Calilung and Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc.

READ: Prosecution won’t present Lopez anymore: Testimony is redundant

Bello is an official of the House Legislative Security Bureau.

He was involved in the security matters when Duterte was in the House in November 2024 — the same time the vice president held a press briefing where she allegedly made the threats against ranking officials.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Lopez, meanwhile, witnessed Duterte’s alleged threats made while she was detained at the House detention facility. /apl