House prosecution counsel Atty. Lorna Kapunan expressed dismay on Day 14 of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Tuesday, August 11, after the defense team allegedly failed to attend a scheduled meeting to compare and discuss documents the prosecution intends to present for Article I, which concerns the alleged misuse and misappropriation of confidential funds.
Kapunan told the impeachment court that the prosecution was left waiting for the defense to agree on a meeting schedule, despite a directive from Presiding Officer Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero for both parties to make themselves available on Thursday or Friday of the previous week.
“Ito pong nangyari ‘Na-indian’ po kami,” Kapunan told the court.
She explained that the prosecution sent a text message on Wednesday asking when the parties would meet, but received no response.
“On Thursday, we waited the whole day. Kailan tayo mag-meet? Thursday na ngayon. Friday na bukas. Our witness will be on board on Monday. Wala pa rin sagot, Your Honor, the whole day of Thursday,” she said.
According to Kapunan, the defense only responded at 5:38 p.m. Thursday, proposing to meet on August 14, a date she said was inconsistent with the presiding officer’s earlier directive.
“At the end of office hours, Thursday, Your Honor, and we have the evidence here, at 5.38 in the afternoon of Thursday, Your Honor, they texted, counsel for the respondent texted to say, we are available on August 14th,” she said.
Kapunan questioned the usefulness of meeting on August 14, noting that the hearing was already proceeding on August 11.
“August 14, what good will that do us? The hearing is today, August 10. And they want us to appear before the clerk of court to compare documents on August 14. For what purpose, Your Honor?” she said.
She further accused the defense of denying that Escudero had specified Thursday or Friday as the dates for the meeting.
“There is bad faith here, Your Honor, because sinabi ng presiding officer ang specific dates Thursday or Friday last week,” Kapunan said.
Kapunan also said the Clerk of Court had been waiting over the weekend for both parties to coordinate a schedule. She said the prosecution made another attempt on Tuesday morning, shortly before the hearing, to convince the defense to proceed with the document comparison.
“In a last attempt, Your Honor, in a last attempt for them, for counsels, for the respondent, this morning, as late as this morning, we approached them to say, we have one hour to go, let's start. And they said, again, they refused,” she said.
According to Kapunan, the defense allegedly argued that the document comparison was unnecessary and that the parties could simply rely on summaries.
“Kasi pakitahan na lang ng summaries, et cetera, no need, Your Honor,” she quoted the defense as saying.
The prosecution had earlier sought permission to present 4,492 documents before the Clerk of Court for comparison purposes. Kapunan said the disagreement over the documents had also been a recurring issue since the pre-trial proceedings.
She pointed out that the parties had been unable to stipulate on the documents because the defense questioned whether the copies were “faithful reproduction” of the prosecution's copies.
“Why? Because daw, hindi faithful reproduction yung kopya nila tsaka yung kopya namin,” Kapunan said.
According to Kapunan, however, the only disputed portion was the covering page of the 4,492-document set.
“Ang pinag-awayan, presiding officer, your honors, isa lang ang pinag-awayan, covering page. Covering page ng 4,492 documents na yan. Ang pinag-awayan covering page,” she said.
Despite the dispute, Kapunan said the prosecution would proceed with presenting its witness and would have the witness identify and briefly go over the relevant documents, including her summary and tabulation.
She also invoked Rule 130, Sections 7 and 3(c) concerning summaries and tabulations as the legal basis for the prosecution's planned presentation.
Kapunan concluded by saying the prosecution would proceed with the presentation despite the lack of agreement with the defense on the document comparison.
