MANILA — Malacañang asserted that the prosecution’s decision to drop three out of four impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte does not amount to a mistrial, emphasizing that both opposing sides were given full opportunities to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Communications Undersecretary and Palace Press Officer Claire Castro stated that the ongoing Senate impeachment proceedings cannot be classified as a mistrial since the defense team actively participated and interrogated witnesses.
Castro made these remarks during a Palace media briefing in Manila on Thursday, October 15, addressing concerns raised by Atty. Shiela Sison, lead counsel for Duterte’s defense, regarding the legal implications of withdrawing the charges.
“Ang mistrial kasi kapag sinabi natin, the other party was not given any chance to present herself; he was not given the chance to present evidence. But in this case, since nagkaroon ng cross-examination, generally and personally on my part, hindi siya matatawag na mistrial,” Castro explained.
Castro underscored that a mistrial typically occurs only when one party is entirely blocked from questioning opposing witnesses—a scenario that did not happen during Duterte’s proceedings, as the defense enjoyed ample time for cross-examinations.
“Pero sa sitwasyon na ito, walang masasabing mistrial because they were given ample time and opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the prosecution,” she added.
Furthermore, Castro noted that the Vice President’s legal counsel never formally objected when the prosecution moved to withdraw the three charges.
Prior to the Palace’s briefing, Sison expressed apprehension that a rushed process or restricted evidence presentation aimed at forcing an immediate judgment would carry the distinct hallmarks of a mistrial, stating, “then we believe that the resulting process would bear the unmistakable characteristics of a mistrial.”
Palace Dismisses Claims of Wasted Resources
Addressing criticisms that the trial’s twists have wasted government time and funds, Malacañang rejected the notion that the proceedings were fruitless.
Castro argued that public evaluation of the hearings depends on perspective, highlighting that official documents were submitted and key government officials testified under oath. She maintained that the sessions successfully brought critical facts and data to light, helping the citizenry better comprehend the nature of the accusations against the Vice President.
“So, lahat po ng concerned parties ay nag-participate. So, walang maaaring masabing nasayang kung mayroon namang naipakitang mga facts, data na maaaring makapagpaliwanag sa taumbayan,” Castro said.
Narrowing Down to Unexplained Wealth
Last Tuesday, October 13, the prosecution formally notified the Senate impeachment court that it would abandon three articles of impeachment against Duterte: Article I regarding confidential funds, Article III involving bribery allegations, and Article IV concerning grave threats.
With these charges dropped, the prosecution intends to channel its focus entirely on Article II, which targets allegations of unexplained wealth. Prosecutors expressed confidence that the remaining evidence is robust enough to secure a conviction and removal from office.
Malacañang emphasized that the modification of charges does not invalidate the judicial process or nullify the information already placed on record before the Senate tribunal.