THE defense must directly answer the sworn testimony and investigative findings presented against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte instead of treating errors in supporting documents as though they had already disposed of the evidence.
Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V of La Union stressed that challenging the accuracy of official records is a legitimate part of cross-examination, but it cannot replace a substantive rebuttal of what the National Bureau of Investigation witness placed on record.
“The defense has every right to question every date, entry and document presented before the court. But after pointing out those mistakes, it must still answer the testimony and the evidence behind it,” Ortega stressed.
Former NBI Cybercrime Division chief Atty. Jeremy Lotoc testified that the agency found prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction as basis for recommending three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition against VP Duterte.
That sworn account remains before the Impeachment Court unless the defense can show that the questioned discrepancies altered the investigation, undermined its conclusions or contradicted the witness’ testimony.
“Kung may maling entry, dapat itama at ipaliwanag. Pero hindi nawawala ang findings ng NBI dahil lamang may mali sa pag-type ng isang dokumento,” Ortega pointed out.
He noted that a clerical error may become material when it changes a relevant fact, affects the reliability of the evidence or prevents the respondent from properly answering the allegation.
“A typo is not meaningless, but neither is it automatically fatal to the case. The defense must establish what the error changed and why that change should affect the court’s appreciation of the evidence,” he explained.
Ortega urged the public to distinguish between mistakes in the preparation of documents and contradictions that directly weaken the substance or credibility of sworn testimony.
“Hindi sapat na sabihing may mali sa papel. Kailangang patunayan kung paano nito pinabagsak ang testimonya, ang findings o ang ebidensiyang sinuri ng mga imbestigador,” he added.
The La Union House leader maintained that the senator-judges must weigh every objection according to its actual effect on the case rather than the amount of attention it receives during the proceedings.
“Correct the paperwork, explain the error and then return to the central question. What evidence has been presented, and what evidence has the defense offered to overcome it?” Ortega stressed.
