The prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial said its decision to repeatedly drop witnesses is not a bluff or an attempt to confuse the defense, but part of its continuing assessment of evidence presented to the court.
The panel regularly reviews its list of witnesses and checkS if their testimonies would provide new information or merely repeat evidence, the lead public prosecutor, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, said in a press briefing Thursday, Day 32 of the trial.
Luistro made the statement after the prosecution withdrew former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV as a witness for Article II, which covers allegations involving Duterte’s unexplained wealth and undeclared assets.
‘It is not true, ever since, since day one, what we have been saying is that we have a practice of revisiting the list of witnesses; we have a practice of deciding after one witness – was this covered or not, do we proceed with this witness?,’ she said.
‘It is a continuing process,’ she said, adding that the prosecution considers several factors before deciding whether to proceed with or dispense with a witness.
Counsel for the prosecution, Lorna Kapunan, said that Luistro’s announcement was not made arbitrarily, saying that she made it after a ‘collective determination and appreciation of what has been presented in terms of testimony and in terms of documents.’
According to Kapunan, the decision to refrain from fielding Trillanes was not abruptly made, as it was the subject of discussions, adding that such matters are ‘very dynamic depending on the circumstances.’
The lawyer, who also announced previous withdrawals of witnesses, said that the reason behind the prosecution’s withdrawal of Trillanes was the same reason why they brought down the number of witnesses for Article IV, or grave threats, from 12 to three; and for Article I, or confidential fund misuse, from 25 to 12.
‘Initially, with grave threats we had 12 witnesses, but because of the strength of the testimony of three of the witnesses from the NBI, we decided to dispense – having proven already the clear issue, the clear grave threats,’ Kapunan said.
‘So that came from a determination after assessing the evidence, both testimonial and documentary. The same with confidential funds, we were supposed to present 25 witnesses, 4,900 plus documents; we decided on 12 because after 12 witnesses we felt that it was sufficient enough,’ she added.
Regarding Trillanes, Kapunan said the former senator’s previous testimony before the House justice committee was already included in the impeachment court’s judicial notice. She said his expected testimony would therefore be largely covered by the existing record.
Aside from Trillanes, the prosecution had decided to forgo the presentation of several high-profile witnesses in the past. It was Kapunan who announced last July 14 that the prosecution team would no longer present Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, Office of the Vice President (OVP) chief-of-staff, as her testimony would be unnecessary.
For his part, Trillanes said he would disclose on Friday the contents of his testimony he was supposed to give before the impeachment court.
He said in a Facebook post that it was he who asked Luistro to remove his name from the prosecution’s list to relieve the panel of the ‘pressure it is going through.’
It is not clear what pressure Trillanes was referring to, but several netizens, including vlogger and lawyer Jesus Falcis, claimed that there were individuals who are against the presentation of the former senator.