MANILA, Philippines — Private prosecution panel member Atty. Lorna Kapunan took a sharp jab at Vice President Sara Duterte, stating that the defense team is running out of legal excuses as their presentation date approaches.
Speaking during a press conference on Friday, November 6, the veteran litigator delivered a blunt warning regarding the upcoming proceedings when the trial resumes on Monday, November 9.
“Kagaya ng sinabi ko noon, your end is near,” Kapunan said.
Kapunan’s remarks followed the Senate impeachment court’s decision to overrule the defense’s general objections and admit all evidence presented by the House prosecution panel.
The tribunal rejected defense arguments regarding the failure to attach bulky exhibits to the original articles of impeachment and the use of court-issued subpoenas.
“Yung order on admissibility of our evidence, ang magandang nangyari diyan, in-admit lahat ng evidence ng prosecution ng presiding officer. So yun ang dalawang orders ng presiding officer at wala nang obstacle para magprisinta dapat ang defense,” she explained.
Addressing criticism that the prosecution engaged in a “fishing expedition,” Kapunan defended the use of subpoenas, emphasizing that the court holds the inherent authority to compel the production of documents to uncover the truth.
“That is the nature of the beast. Yan ang ibig sabihin ng subpoena. Mag-produce kayo ng dokumento para malaman natin kung totoo man or hindi ang alegasyon ng prosecution,” Kapunan noted, adding, “So it is not a fishing expedition, it is within the power of the impeachment court to issue subpoenas to produce documents.”
The court also admitted Duterte’s financial records predating her vice presidency to establish a baseline for her income and net worth under Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
However, Kapunan clarified that the acceptance of these documents does not equate to a final judgment on the allegations.
“Iba ang admissibility, iba ang probative value. Hindi ibig sabihin na porke in-admit ng presiding officer ang evidence eh totoo na yun. I-weigh pa nila ‘yung probative value. Ano ang weight ng ebidensya nito? Ito ba ay meritorious to explain unexplained wealth? So, yung admissibility is not a ruling on the probative value or on the merits of the evidence itself,” she concluded.