The prosecution said it could eliminate the need to present at least 15 witnesses in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte if her camp admits the authenticity and ownership of bank accounts reflected in financial records submitted to the Senate impeachment court.
House prosecutor Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno made the proposal Tuesday through a written request for admission covering 104 matters related to Duterte’s bank records.
Diokno said the request seeks confirmation on two points: whether the bank documents submitted under subpoena are genuine and whether the accounts identified in the records belong to Duterte, either solely or jointly with other persons.
“Earlier today (Tuesday), Your Honor, the prosecution served upon counsel for respondent a written request for admission and furnished a copy to this honorable court,” Diokno said.
The prosecution invoked Rule 26, which allows a party to seek an admission on the genuineness of relevant documents or the truth of material facts.
Diokno said Duterte’s camp should be able to verify the records because they concern accounts and documents within the Vice President’s knowledge or readily accessible to her.
“We are not asking the respondent to admit matters that they do not know anything about or that they have no access to,” Diokno said. “We are asking them simply to admit records that they can readily and easily verify either through their own records or through confirmation with the banks and other institutions.”
He said the procedure could prevent the court from spending time establishing facts that the defense does not dispute.
“We are invoking that procedure for one reason and one reason alone: to shorten this trial,” Diokno said.
“If the respondents would admit matters that are subject of the request, we would be able to dispense with the presentation of at least 15 witnesses,” Diokno said.
Diokno also told the defense to clearly state its position on each request.
“Kung totoo, aminin. Kung hindi totoo, tuwirang tanggihan. Kung hindi naman kayang aminin o itanggi nang tapat, sabihin sa ilalim ng panunumpa kung bakit (If it is true, admit it. If it is not true, directly deny it. If you cannot honestly admit or deny it, state under oath the reason why),” he said.
Defense counsel Michael Poa did not oppose the prosecution’s effort to streamline the proceedings but asked the court to give Duterte’s camp 15 days to respond instead of the seven days sought by the prosecution.
“On the part of the defense, I do not question the intention of the good counsel to abbreviate the proceedings,” Poa said. “In fact, the defense would like to do so as well.”
The request prompted Presiding Officer Senator Francis Escudero to question whether Rule 26 applies to an impeachment trial, which he described in the proceedings as sui generis, or of its own kind.
Escudero raised People v. Ang, a case that discussed the use of requests for admission in criminal proceedings in relation to the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Diokno maintained that the impeachment proceedings are different from a criminal trial because the court cannot impose imprisonment or a fine as a criminal penalty.
“This is an impeachment trial where the outcome will only determine whether the Vice President can continue to serve as Vice President and whether there will be any perpetual disqualification imposed on her,” Diokno said. “No imprisonment, no fine, no other element of criminal case is involved in this impeachment trial.”
The impeachment court had previously authorized subpoenas for Duterte’s financial records, with their use limited to matters relevant to the charges before the court.
Diokno also distinguished the request for admission from stipulations used earlier in the proceedings, saying a stipulation depends on an agreement between the parties while a request for admission relies on the procedure provided under the rules.
Escudero ultimately granted Duterte’s camp 15 days to file its response to the 104 requests.
He also cautioned that the court would consider the effect of a general denial and any unreasonable denial in assessing the defense’s response.
Comments