VICE President Sara Z. Duterte’s defense has never claimed that bank records subpoenaed in connection with her alleged unexplained wealth are fake or fabricated, House prosecutor Chel Diokno of Akbayan Party-list said Monday.
Diokno made the point as the House prosecution defended its request for admission, which asks Duterte’s camp to admit or deny basic facts involving bank records submitted directly to the Senate impeachment court.
The prosecution wants to establish the authenticity of the records without having to call numerous bank officials to testify on documents prosecutors say are not genuinely disputed.
“To be clear, the respondent has not made any claim that they are fake or fabricated,” Diokno said.
He stressed that the records came directly from the banks in compliance with subpoenas issued by the impeachment court and did not pass through the prosecution.
“Ang nagsubmit nitong records ay hindi po mga pipitsuging bangko. These are known banks who would not submit fake documents to this court,” Diokno said.
“They know how important this case is. They know the whole nation is watching. Nakataya ang kanilang pangalan at reputasyon dito,” he added.
The records are being examined as part of the prosecution’s case under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, which accuses Duterte of unexplained wealth and discrepancies in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
Diokno said that since the defense has not alleged that the bank records were fabricated, their authenticity should not require extensive testimony.
“That is why we are saying that the authenticity of the bank documents is not genuinely disputed,” he said.
Duterte’s defense has sought the wholesale rejection of the prosecution’s request for admission, arguing in part that compelling her to respond would violate her right against self-incrimination.
Diokno said the prosecution is not asking Duterte to admit wrongdoing or liability.
“Hindi po namin siya pinaaamin sa anumang kasalanan o pananagutan,” he said.
He said prosecutors are merely asking the defense to recognize documents that the banks themselves submitted pursuant to court subpoenas.
As an alternative to the request for admission, the prosecution offered to enter into stipulations with the defense on three matters: that the bank records exist; that they were produced by the identified banks pursuant to subpoenas issued by the impeachment court; and that they are genuine and authentic copies of records maintained and produced by those banks.
Diokno stressed that agreeing to those matters would not mean accepting the prosecution’s interpretation of the transactions contained in the records.
“The proposed stipulations would not require the respondent to admit liability, the truth or accuracy of every entry, or the prosecution’s interpretation of any transaction,” he said.
Duterte’s lead counsel, Shiela Sison, said the defense could not immediately agree to the proposed stipulations because additional bank documents were still being marked and the defense needed time to examine them.
She also maintained that requiring Duterte to respond to the request for admission raises concerns over her right against self-incrimination.
Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero directed Diokno to put the proposed stipulations in writing so the defense could formally respond.
Escudero said the impeachment court would rule on the prosecution’s request for admission and the defense’s objection within the week.
metrosundaily
