House: Defense shows ‘panic’ amid witness withdrawals, weak rebuttal

THE House prosecution on Thursday said Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s defense appeared to be scrambling to change its strategy after dropping several witnesses and failing to directly challenge key evidence in her impeachment trial.

House prosecution spokesperson Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said the defense’s decision to withdraw witnesses followed testimony that, in the prosecution’s view, strengthened rather than weakened the allegations against Duterte.

“In my own observation, it only manifests how the defense is now panicking,” Alonto Adiong said at a post-trial press briefing.

“They’re trying to re-strategize again their initial, probably initial attempt to attack the case of the prosecution,” he added.

Alonto Adiong said several defense witnesses had failed to establish with certainty the facts they were called to prove, particularly concerning Duterte’s property declarations, business interests and financial transactions.

He cited the testimony of defense witness Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay, in-house counsel for GenCorp Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corp.

According to Alonto Adiong, Punay’s testimony reinforced the prosecution’s position that Duterte retained business interests despite constitutional restrictions on the vice president’s participation in business.

He said Punay also described Duterte’s interest in GenCorp as a “loose investment,” even though the company had secured government contracts in Davao City.

“So instead of proving the case of the defense that the Vice President did not commit any impeachable offense, it actually went the other way around. It made to the advantage of the prosecution,” Alonto Adiong said.

House prosecution legal spokesperson and counsel Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. also expressed surprise over the defense’s decision to drop prospective witnesses despite having several weeks to prepare.

Tolosa said 16 witnesses had been expected, but the defense initially decided to dispense with 15 and later dropped the remaining bank witness.

“Even if they were here already, nagkaroon ng desisyon, dispense with 15, isa na lang matitira,” Tolosa said.

He said Punay had acknowledged that Duterte received income from GenCorp while serving as vice president.

“No matter kung anumang label na gusto niyang ilagay diyan, the fact is inamin niya, tumanggap siya sa GenCorp habang Vice President siya,” Tolosa said.

He added that GenCorp had secured more than P30 million in contracts with the Davao City government, which is headed by Duterte’s brother, Mayor Sebastian Duterte.

Tolosa also questioned whether earlier defense witnesses had conclusively established that properties identified by the prosecution were the same properties listed in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.

He said one witness could not confirm the identification with certainty, while another acknowledged that different properties could have similar assessed and fair market values.

However, Tolosa said the prosecution would leave the assessment of the defense’s evidence to the Senate impeachment court.

“As to what that tells us about the strength or weakness of their defense, we leave that matter to the determination and consideration of the honorable senator-judges,” he said.

The defense is presenting evidence under Article II, the sole remaining impeachment charge against Duterte involving alleged unexplained wealth.