THE House prosecution on Tuesday declared that its evidence against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte has only grown stronger during the fifth day of the impeachment trial, saying the defense failed to undermine the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc despite an extensive cross-examination.
“I can honestly say that on this fifth day ng ating trial, matibay pa rin at lalong tumibay ang ebidensya na inilatag ng ating prosecution panel,” House prosecution spokesperson and adviser, former Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers said in a press briefing.
Barbers said Lotoc’s testimony corroborated the earlier testimony of NBI special agent John Mark Calilung by reaffirming the authenticity of the video where Duterte said she had instructed someone to kill President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos-Araneta, and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez should she herself be killed.
He added that Lotoc also confirmed the NBI followed proper procedures before recommending the filing of three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition against Duterte.
Barbers also said the defense devoted much of its cross-examination to questioning dates, typographical mistakes and other clerical inconsistencies in the prosecution’s documentary evidence instead of challenging the substance of Lotoc’s testimony.
“Nakita natin hanggang ngayon, ang defense panel ay puro mga typographical errors, mga clerical errors ang kanilang tinututukan, hindi ’yung sustansya nung testimonya na binigay ni Atty. Jeremy Lotoc sa impeachment court,” Barbers said.
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong, also a spokesperson for the House prosecution, said the testimony of the prosecution’s two NBI witnesses has remained consistent from the first day of trial, even as the defense shifted its arguments from freedom of expression to conditional threat and later to typographical errors.
Alonto Adiong said the central issue remains whether Duterte’s statements were appropriate for a sitting Vice President and constituted a betrayal of public trust.
“Hanggang sa ngayon, ang gusto nilang ipahiwatig na wala talagang threat na nasabi. Pero still, hindi pa po nila nasasagot ’yung unang-unang katanungan. Ito ba ay karapat-dapat ba na pananalita sa isang halal na pinuno?” Alonto Adiong said.
He added that despite the defense’s arguments, it has yet to present any basis to conclude that Duterte did not make grave threats.
“Marami po silang rason, marami po silang katanungan, nalilito po ang taong-bayan sa mga dates at sa mga spelling ngayon,” Adiong noted.
“Pero klaro po ang testimonya ng ating prosecution [witnesses] at hanggang ngayon, wala pa po silang naisu-supply na rason para ang korte malaman nila at matukoy nila na hindi grave threat ‘yung sinabi ni Vice President Sara at hindi siya ‘yung nagsabi ng grave threats na ito,” he added.
About the Author
