THE House prosecution on Tuesday asserted that Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s legal team has avoided addressing the central issue in the impeachment case, arguing that the defense focused on procedural and technical matters instead of denying the controversial statements attributed to the Vice President
House prosecutor and Manila Rep. Joel Chua said the defense has repeatedly questioned typographical errors and dates in documentary evidence but has stopped short of denying Duterte’s own words.
“So far sa nakikita ko, maliwanag ang video, nandun na sa video ang pagbabanta, nasa record ang findings. Anong sagot ng depensa? Mali ang petsa, [may] mga typo error,” Chua said in a television interview.
“Nakailang hearing na tayo, nakailang trial na tayo, never nilang dineny. In fact, ang sinasabi pa nila, nagpapalusot pa sila. But never nilang dineny na ito ay binanggit at sinabi?” added the Chairman of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.
Chua’s remarks came after the defense on Monday devoted much of its cross-examination of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc to questioning typographical errors and discrepancies in dates in the prosecution’s documentary evidence.
Earlier in the hearing, Lotoc testified that the NBI treated Duterte’s Nov. 23, 2024 remarks as a serious and credible threat against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez.
He told the Senate impeachment court that the bureau recommended the filing of charges for grave threats and inciting to sedition after finding “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.”
During cross-examination, the defense pointed to clerical errors in some NBI documents, including incorrect dates. Lotoc acknowledged that the mistakes were typographical errors and maintained that they did not affect the substance of the investigation or the bureau’s findings.
Chua said the defense has instead attempted to explain or justify Duterte’s remarks rather than dispute that she made them.
He also rejected suggestions that the prosecution must identify the alleged assassin Duterte claimed to have hired, saying the impeachment case centers on her own public statements rather than proving the existence of an actual assassination plot.
“The threat itself [is enough],” Chua said when asked whether prosecutors must prove that the alleged assassin existed.
“Dahil kasi nga, ang kinukwestyon natin dito ‘yung binitawan niyang salita. The fact na may assassin, na nakausap siya, the fact na hindi ito makita, is of no moment. Kasi hindi naman ito criminal, kung saan proof beyond reasonable doubt ang kailangan patunayan namin. This is an impeachment case. So iba ’to, at hindi po ito criminal case.”
The House prosecution is currently presenting evidence on the fourth article of impeachment, which accuses Duterte of making grave threats and inciting to sedition over her Nov. 23, 2024 remarks that she had contracted someone to kill the country’s top officials if she herself were killed.
About the Author
