THE House prosecution panel on Thursday night welcomed the completion of the pre-trial proceedings in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte, thanking the Senate impeachment court for helping bring the process to a close despite the thousands of documentary exhibits involved.
The five-day pre-trial conference, held on June 18 and June 22 to 25, concluded with the completion of the marking of documentary evidence and the submission of the parties’ respective stipulations and manifestations ahead of the trial proper, which will start on July 6.
“Natapos na po ang marking of exhibits and terminated na rin ang pre-trial conference,” lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro said during a press conference after the proceedings.
Luistro was joined in the press conference by fellow public prosecutors Leila de Lima, Jose Manuel “Chel” Diokno, Joel Chua and Terry Ridon, along with private prosecutor and legal spokesperson Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr.
Luistro credited the Senate impeachment court for helping ensure that the proceedings moved forward despite the volume of evidence, particularly thousands of documents supporting the impeachment articles on alleged unexplained wealth and confidential funds.
“We expressed our thanks and gratitude to the impeachment court, sapagkat through the intervention of the impeachment court, nakatapos kami mag-marking, especially with voluminous documents pertaining to the article on unexplained wealth and the article on confidential funds,” she said.
She said the prosecution also considers the pre-trial a success because it remained focused on completing the proceedings expeditiously despite procedural issues raised by the defense.
“Definitely, sapagkat ever since our objective is to finish expeditiously,” Luistro said. “It was a clear position not to engage with those issues because our objective ever since is to finish this pre-trial conference expeditiously.”
The prosecution, however, placed on record its observation that the defense prolonged the marking of documentary evidence by refusing to use common markings for identical exhibits intended for presentation by both parties.
According to Luistro, prosecutors marked more than 4,000 documentary exhibits related to confidential fund disbursements—over 2,000 from the Office of the Vice President and more than 1,900 from the Department of Education.
Because the defense insisted on separately marking the same documents, the total number of markings doubled.
“So mamarkahan ng prosecution individually. And then because they refuse to agree that we mark in the same document, then they have to mark as well those 4,000 exhibits, which likewise form part of their documents. Walong libo in total,” Luistro said.
Chua said the process became even more time-consuming because every marked document also had to be signed by the prosecution, the defense and impeachment court personnel.
Responding to the defense’s claim that one prosecution document lacked a page during the marking process, Chua said the incident was isolated.
“Isolated lang po ’yun, hindi naman po lahat ng pagmamarkahan. Nangyayari naman po ’yan,” the Manila lawmaker said.
The prosecution also renewed its request for the Senate impeachment court to allow the opening of the sealed Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) box, saying it contains records relevant to the impeachment article on alleged unexplained wealth.
Luistro said the House deliberately refrained from opening the box after receiving it from the BIR, believing that the matter should be left to the impeachment court.
She noted, however, that the defense opposed not only the opening of the box but even its marking as an exhibit.
The prosecution is now awaiting the Senate impeachment court’s pre-trial order and the formal start of the impeachment trial.
