During Day 42 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Wednesday, November 11, senator-judges and legal counsels clashed over the legal distinction between evidentiary weight and an admission against interest.
The debate unfolded during the testimony of Atty. Suzette Balucanag-Punay, in-house counsel for GenCorp. Industries Inc. and Metro City Chow Foods Corporation—two entities linked to the Vice President. The defense presented Balucanag-Punay as its fourth witness to refute prosecution claims that Duterte held undeclared business interests.
While on the stand, the witness acknowledged that Duterte remains a director of Metro City Chow, continues to draw cash disbursements from a Jollibee branch operation in Davao City, and received ₱2.14 million from 2022 to 2025 as a return of capital on a “loose investment” in GenCorp.
Clash Over Probative Weight and Admissibility
The testimony prompted a legal debate when Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson questioned the witness on how official public documents compare to an admission against interest.
“This is getting to be interesting, but also confusing. From a layman to a lawyer, Atty. Suzette, between an admission against interest—notarized—and official public documents like the GIS (General Information Sheet), which has more admissibility and probative weight?” Lacson asked.
Balucanag-Punay stated her view that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records carry greater probative weight. However, Lacson disagreed, pointing to Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
“What I know is that there is more probative weight or admissibility weight when it is an admission against interest,” Lacson said.
“I actually know someone who ended up in jail just for making an admission on television. In this case, the SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) is involved,” he added.
Presiding Officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero noted that the final appreciation of the evidence rests with the senator-judges.
Arguments from Defense and Prosecution
Defense counsel Atty. Justin Gular weighed in on the technical definition of the legal term.
“We have to be clear, Your Honor. Admission against interest is not a rule on probative value. It is an exception to the hearsay rule,” Gular said.
“In other words, comparing pieces of evidence and statements and the probative weight thereof, with all due respect, is done by the respective court and this case, the senator-judges,” he explained.
Meanwhile, private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan countered that an admission holds a premier position in the hierarchy of evidence under the Rules of Court, noting that a party’s declaration regarding a relevant fact is admissible against them.
Concluding the arguments, Escudero observed that both legal teams presented valid points.
“Nobody is wrong. Atty. Justin is correct that admission against interest is indeed an exception to the hearsay rule,” Escudero said.
“Atty. Lorna is, likewise, correct that admission per se has been characterized in fact as the ‘queen of evidence,’ will carry more probative weight especially if it comes from the accused,” he stressed.