HOUSE impeachment prosecutor Joel Chua of Manila maintained Wednesday that the prosecution has a strong case against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte with or without her testimony, even as he described Duterte as the “best witness” to explain the allegations against her.
“Naniniwala kami, humarap siya o hindi, ay matibay iyong aming kaso, iyong aming mga inilalatag na ebidensya,” Chua said during a press briefing.
“Pero sa amin po kasing paniniwala na wala pong tao na best na makakapagpaliwanag ng bawat article kung hindi ang ating Vice President,” he added.
The House prosecution on Tuesday reserved the right to present Duterte as a witness after wrapping up its presentation on Article I involving her alleged misuse of confidential funds.
Chua said prosecutors decided not to seek the issuance of a subpoena for Duterte yet after concluding that her testimony could be material not only to the confidential fund charge but to all four Articles of Impeachment.
“Napagkaisahan naming lahat na ang pinakamagandang testigo sa lahat, hindi lamang sa isang artikulo, bagkus sa apat na articles na aming ipi-presenta, ay walang iba kung hindi ang ating Bise Presidente mismo,” Chua said.
“Dahil siya lamang at siya lamang mismo ang tanging makakasagot ng lahat ng mga alegasyon. At ito ay maganda na marinig natin mula sa kanyang bibig ang kanyang tugon dito sa apat na articles,” he added.
Chua said Duterte could be called as witness under the prosecution’s reservation in its pretrial brief, although he acknowledged that she could invoke her constitutional rights should prosecutors eventually seek her testimony.
“Well, we respect her constitutional right at hindi naman natin maiaalis na iyon ay i-invoke niya,” he said.
“But then again, sa amin, walang pinakamagandang testigo dito at dapat magpaliwanag dito kung hindi ang Bise Presidente mismo, nang sa ganoon ay marinig, hindi lamang ng mga senator-judges, bagkus ang ating mga kababayan, ang kanyang mga tugon sa lahat ng mga katanungan, sa bawat artikulo na isinampa laban sa kanya,” Chua added.
He stressed that the prosecution is not considering Duterte as a witness to pressure the defense, but to give her an opportunity to directly answer the accusations.
“Well, hindi naman iyon ang purpose namin. Ang purpose namin is maipaliwanag niya, to give her the opportunity to explain,” Chua said.
“Dahil lagi niyang sinasabi na wala siyang kasalanan, at iyon ang paniniwala nila na wala namang kasalanan na nagawa ang Vice President. Na ito ay sinasabi nila political harassment lamang daw,” he added.
Chua said Duterte’s testimony could be particularly significant because witnesses presented on the confidential fund charge repeatedly disclaimed personal knowledge of how the funds were ultimately used.
He cited former Office of the Vice President special disbursing officer (SDO) Gina Acosta, who testified that she turned over confidential funds to then-OVP security officer Col. Raymund Dante Lachica upon Duterte’s instruction and did not know the ultimate recipients.
“Maski iyong mismong SDO na dapat nakakaalam kung papaano dinisburse, eh hindi rin niya kilala kung kanino-kanino dinisburse,” Chua said.
“At sinasabi niya na ito ay binigay niya sa isang security officer base sa utos ng head ng agency. So with that, tanging si VP Sara lamang ang makakasagot ng mga katanungan, hindi lamang namin, bagkus ng lahat ng tao,” he added.
Chua nevertheless stressed that the prosecution does not consider Duterte’s testimony indispensable to proving its case.
He said prosecutors would not have concluded their presentation on the first two charges—the alleged threats under Article IV and confidential fund misuse under Article I—if they did not believe they had sufficiently established their case.
“Yes. From the very beginning naman, hindi naman kami tatapos sa bawat articles kung hindi kami naniniwala na ito ay naipresenta namin nang maayos,” Chua said.
“Insofar as iyong dalawang articles na naipresenta namin, iyong Article IV sa grave threat at ngayon iyong katatapos lang na article, iyong Article I sa confi fund, naniniwala kami na iyong mga gusto naming maipresenta, makita ng mga judges o ng mga senator-judges at ng mga kababayan natin, ay naipresenta namin nang maayos at nailatag lahat ang mga ebidensya,” he added.
Should Duterte agree to testify, Chua said her statements would also be subject to scrutiny by the prosecution.
“Kasi pagka siya naman ay humarap, magiging subject din siya sa cross-examination, at iyon ang pagkakataon para ma-test natin iyong truthfulness ng kanyang mga sasabihin sa impeachment court,” he said.
Chua said Duterte’s appearance would allow her to personally present her side not only to the senator-judges but also to Filipinos following the trial.
“At kung wala naman siyang kasalanan, ito na rin iyong tamang venue para malinawan niya, maipaliwanag niya ang kanyang punto at maipresenta niya sa taong-bayan, punto per punto, ang kanilang mga sagot sa bawat allegation na binabato sa kanya,” he said.
If Duterte chooses not to take the stand, Chua said the prosecution remains confident in its evidence, but the Vice President would lose an opportunity to personally answer the allegations.
“Kung hindi po siya darating… masasabi natin na na-miss niya iyong chance para makapagpaliwanag sa ating mga kababayan,” Chua said.
metrosundaily
