MANILA — Vice President Sara Duterte’s legal team may modify how it presents its evidence in her ongoing impeachment trial, following the prosecution’s decision to drop three articles of impeachment, a defense spokesperson said on Saturday, October 17.
Atty. Michael Poa, spokesperson and member of the defense panel, stated that the camp must evaluate whether their planned evidence remains pertinent to the sole remaining charge focusing on alleged unexplained wealth when Senate proceedings resume on November 9.
“We want to at least streamline the presentation, make sure whatever we present will still be relevant kahit na it might seem to be a rebuttal evidence sa confidential funds,” Poa shared during a radio interview.
“For example, we still have to show relevance kasi kung hindi, in fairness to the prosecution madali lang silang mag-object din diyan at inaasahan natin na mag-object sila. I would have done the same,” he added.
According to Poa, the core blueprint of their defense remains largely intact, though adjustments are necessary to determine which specific documents and witnesses are still required under the narrowed scope of the case.
“Sa atin… We need to tweak our strategy a bit now, although sa totoo lang, we would have wanted to still go on with our initial plans on how to present our evidence,” Poa noted. “But with the development, kailangan talaga natin tingnan.”
The House prosecution team earlier trimmed down the original five articles of impeachment to just one, leaving the allegation of a culpable violation of the Constitution tied to unexplained wealth for the Senate tribunal to try.
Poa emphasized that the defense wants to avoid any perception of delaying the court’s time.
“If ever we need to do that and if ever we want to do that we’ll have to show at least relevance to the court para hindi maisip ng korte that we’re wasting their time,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Poa admitted that the defense previously turned down a pre-trial proposal from the impeachment court and presiding officer to alternate the presentation of witnesses between both sides, an arrangement that required mutual consent.
“Aminin ko na ‘yung defense talaga ‘yung hindi pumayag doon,” Poa acknowledged, citing concerns regarding the proper burden of proof and the expectation that the prosecution should fully exhaust its presentation first.
He added that the defense could not have foreseen that the prosecution would withdraw charges midway through the proceedings after presenting initial evidence and witnesses.
“Hindi natin masasabi kung nagpresenta sila ng ebidensya sa isang article dapat turn na namin pero bago pa dumating ‘yung turn namin maaari din naman nilang i-withdraw ‘yan just like they did now,” Poa said.
Declining to elaborate further on the prosecution’s maneuver, he maintained that altering trial strategies falls well within the opposing panel’s prerogative.