The House prosecution panel on Monday, August 10, maintained that the defense team's refusal to stipulate documents related to Vice President Sara Duterte's confidential funds has been contributing to delays in the ongoing impeachment trial.
During a press briefing, House prosecution spokesperson Atty. Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said the Senate impeachment court's directive requiring both parties to compare documentary evidence before the hearing was intended to streamline proceedings, particularly the presentation of thousands of liquidation documents.
"Isipin natin, alalahanin natin una, ano bang purpose nitong utos? It's actually a directive from the presiding officer to both parties para mapabilis yung paglilitis, mapabilis specifically yung pag-identify nung mga libo-libong dokumento which are the liquidation reports," Tolosa said.
He explained that the prosecution had sought to meet with the defense before the scheduled hearing so both sides could compare the documents, which he described as common exhibits, before prosecution witness COA auditor Xylene Del Campo resumed her testimony.
"Para pag dumating si Xylene, pag tinawag siya ulit for the continuation of her direct examination, hindi na kailangang isa-isahin yung mga dokumento," he said.
Tolosa also noted that lead private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan had offered to use the defense's own copies of the documents if they questioned the authenticity of the prosecution's evidence.
"Sabi nga ni Atty. Kapunan, 'Sige kung meron kayong doubts dito sa copies ng mga documents namin which actually came from you, OVP and DepEd ay nag-submit nito sa COA. But if for some reason, are you claiming that the COA tampered with the documents after you submitted it to them?'"
He added that the defense had agreed that their own documents could be used, making it necessary for both parties to first compare their respective copies.
According to Tolosa, despite repeated efforts by the prosecution to arrange the comparison, the defense proposed holding the meeting only on August 14, several days after the scheduled hearing.
"Unfortunately, ang sagot sa amin, August 14. What purpose will that serve? Dahil today nga naka-schedule dapat 'yan," he said.
Responding to the defense's explanation that the delay was due to the limited availability of its lawyers, Tolosa argued that the task did not require the participation of all 16 members of the defense panel.
"Well, sabi na nga niya, 16 lawyers ang officially nag-enter ng appearance dito. Hindi naman kailangan buong team sumama dyan para lang mag-comparison ng documents," he said.
While stopping short of accusing the defense of deliberately delaying the proceedings, Tolosa said the panel's actions have had that effect.
"So, again, tulad ng sabi namin, ayokong sabihin na sinasadya nila na i-delay itong proceedings na ito. But naigiging malinaw, magmula dun sa actions nila... sinasadya man o hindi, nakakakos talaga ito ng delay," he said.
The prosecution said it intends to raise the matter during the next hearing and leave it to the Senate's presiding officer to determine the appropriate action.
