Prosecution counsel Benjamin Tolosa Jr. received a scolding from the Senate impeachment court for engaging in ‘intramurals’ with the defense lawyer and wasting time, after he started his examination of former Education Undersecretary Michael Poa on Wednesday by asking if he is a competent lawyer.
At the resumption of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday, Tolosa asked Poa – also a counsel for Duterte for these proceedings – regarding his educational background, his entry into the legal profession, and eventually being appointed into various positions in the Department of Education (DepEd).
When Tolosa asked whether Poa is a trusted official of Duterte, Sheila Sison, counsel for the respondent on duty, said she is willing to stipulate or agree to that matter.
But when Tolosa asked whether the defense would also stipulate that Poa is an ‘is an experienced and highly competent lawyer,’ Sison fired back, asking if the prosecution is classifying Poa as an expert witness.
‘Before I respond to that, may I now ask the prosecutor if they are qualifying this witness as an expert, your Honor,’ Sison said.
‘Because that is the inference from that proposal to stipulate, that he is highly experienced and of high expertise, in the work that he does, your Honor, as a lawyer. So earlier, they qualified him as a hostile witness and if they qualify him now as an expert, then that will give the prosecutor some leeway to ask him on legal matters,’ she added.
Tolosa then said that the defense cannot dictate on the prosecution if they will consider Poa as an expert witness, as it falls under their discretion. However, Presiding Officer and Senator-judge Francis Escudero told Tolosa that he can just ask the questions as they are.
‘With all due respect, the defense cannot dictate on the prosecution on the nature of the testimony of the witness. That discretion falls entirely and exclusively on us, if we want to present a witness as an expert witness, or ordinary witness. He may be the most qualified lawyer, but it’s still our discretion if we want to use him as an expert witness or not,’ Tolosa said.
‘Then in that case the chair will ask counsel to simply proceed with his questions because counsel, I find it irrelevant to be asking for a stipulation if Atty. Poa is good at what he does, I believe he is, but unless you will qualify him as an expert as pointed out by Atty. Sheila, instead of going through these intramurals,’ Escudero replied.
Tolosa tried to interrupt, but Escudero firmly told him that the chair was making a ruling.
‘Atty. Tolosa, Chair is ruling, kindly proceed with your direct examination already and go direct to your points,’ Escudero said.
‘But with all due respect, his competence is highly material to this case, because it will go into the credibility of his statements, and of course your Honor please, we be given some leeway because even if this is direct, because he is a hostile witness, this is the nature of our cross-examination,’ Tolosa replied. ‘So we hope that we be allowed, we be given wider latitude in examining this witness.’
‘Counsel, you are asking for a stipulation which the opposing counsel refused to do so again […] We’ve wasted enough time on these intramurals between you and counsel for respondent, just proceed with your direct. The witness is there, the witness is smart enough to answer,’ Escudero added.
The atmosphere during Wednesday’s trial has been tense, as the impeachment court is presented with a unique situation, where a counsel for the respondent – in this case, Poa acting as Duterte’s lawyer – is asked by the prosecution to take the stand as a hostile witness.
Sison, lead counsel for Duterte, initially questioned Tolosa’s offer as he called Poa ‘abugadong walang alam’ (lawyer who knows nothing) as it appears to be a mere ‘rhetoric aimed to provide drama.’
Tolosa said that it was not his intention to insult Poa, saying that he was merely referring to Poa’s insistence during a House of Representatives hearing in 2024 that he does not have personal knowledge of the confidential fund (CF) expenditures made by the DepEd for the first three quarters of 2023.
Still, Sison asked that the statements be stricken off the record, as Tolosa could have used better phrasing. Escudero agreed with Sison, ruling that Tolosa’s remarks be removed from the records.
Poa is the tenth witness presented by the prosecution for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, which delves into allegations of CF misuse within Duterte’s offices – DepEd and the Office of the Vice President (OVP).
Before Poa, the prosecution panel presented two Land Bank of the Philippines officials from which OVP and DepEd withdrew their CFs; Commission on Audit (COA) auditors who checked on the confidential expenditures made by Duterte’s offices; OVP staffers like former special disbursing officer Gina Acosta; and on Tuesday, two Philippine Army (PA) officials.
During the trial on Tuesday, Army Col. Maranos Boransing II and Army Col. Magtanggol Panopio testified that none of Duterte’s offices – whether it be DepEd, OVP, or even the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group – placed part of its regular allocations or CFs to their youth oriented-programs.
Boransing and Panopio were referring to the Youth Leadership Summit (YLS) and the Information Education Communication (IEC), programs funded by the PA’s annual budget, which aim to curb communist groups’ recruitment of high school and college students.
However, when the Commission on Audit (COA) flagged DepEd’s P15.54 million confidential expenditures through an audit observation memorandum (AOM), the department cited certifications from Boransing, Panopio and other PA officials regarding the conduct of the YLS and IEC to prove the use of CFs.
During the trial, Panopio also admitted being shocked that DepEd under Duterte used his certification to justify its confidential expenses.