MANILA: The House prosecution panel in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial did not go on a “fishing expedition” as its evidence came from her own records, along with those of her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, and their alleged companies.
Rep. Gerville Luistro, the lead prosecutor, made this denial on Wednesday in an interview with ANC, tracing the evidence against the vice president to corporate filings, tax returns, bank reports, and official registrations of firearms and properties.
“All of the pieces of evidence used for the unexplained wealth [charge] are the own documents of the respondent, her husband, and the companies that they own,” Luistro stressed.
Earlier this week, Duterte’s lawyers challenged the relevance, admissibility, and authentication of the prosecution’s exhibits in a 26-page comment filed on Oct 30.
They would want to exclude financial and corporate records offered to support the unexplained wealth charge.
Luistro said the objections were expected after the defense had also rejected earlier attempts to secure admissions or agreements on evidence.
“We tried stipulation, they denied all, and now that we just filed our formal offer of evidence, they are objecting to all, no?” she said.
Luistro pointed out that the prosecution’s records came from several agencies — audited financial statements from the Securities and Exchange Commission and income tax returns from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. She said those documents originated from the respondent, her spouse, and their companies.
On the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) testimony, she identified the banks holding the accounts as the source of its reports.
“On AMLC [documents], they came from the report of their own depository banks,” Luistro said.
She also pointed out that firearm and land registrations came from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office and the Land Registration Authority.
Luistro maintained that the impeachment court had ordered the production of the records and had already heard arguments on subpoenas to the banks, BIR, and AMLC.
“That cannot be a fishing expedition. As a matter of fact, how was the evidence produced? That’s through the compulsory power of the impeachment court,” she said.
She left the decision on admitting the offered evidence to the senator-judges.
“We offer the evidence we believe are relevant to Article 2, unexplained wealth, and it is all up to the judgment of the honorable impeachment court whether this will be declared as admissible or otherwise,” Luistro said.
The defense is scheduled to begin presenting evidence on Nov. 9. The second impeachment article is the sole remaining charge after the prosecution withdrew three other impeachment articles. - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
