Sara Duterte's camp claims of aliases for fund recipients too late, says prosecutor

Private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia said it was too late for the defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte to say that the unusual names of individuals who received confidential funds are mere aliases after a witness testified that these unusual names have no birth, marriage or death records. Divinagracia made the point after Philippine Statistics Authority's (PSA) Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande testified Monday that Mary Grace Piattos, Timon Pusa, among other unusual names as stated in the Office of the Vice President and Department of Education’s (DepEd’s) acknowledgment receipts submitted to state auditors for liquidation were not found on PSA’s Civil Registry Records. Likewise, some of the names of confidential fund recipients in acknowledgment receipts submitted by Vice President Duterte's offices matched the records of those people who already died, if not children as young as two months old. Divinagracia cited that when asked by Senator judge Risa Hontiveros as to whether these names were aliases, defense lawyer Justin Gular responded that these names “are, in fact, aliases…for the consideration of this court” then later added that in threshing out this matter on aliases, the defense will do it “at the appropriate time” during its presentation of evidence. “In response to the manifestation earlier made by the defense that as of this moment, they cannot yet disclose their position on whether the names appearing in the acknowledgement receipts [they submitted to Commission on Audit] are real names or aliases, Your Honor. With all due respect, Your Honor, it's already a tad too late for the defense to be adopting the position that these are aliases,” Divinagracia said in her manifestation after witness Grande was excused. “As I've repeatedly manifested, Your Honor, they were already given the opportunity at the first time in their answer [to the impeachment case] and second time in the pre-trial, Your Honor, precisely…we conducted pre-trial, Your Honor, so that the parties can lay their cards on the table. And on the basis of the issues defined during the pre-trial [conference], the prosecution worked on its case,” Divinagracia said. Pre-trial conference is where both parties mark their respective evidence, both documentary and testimonial, and submit them to the Senate impeachment court, resulting in a pre-trial brief which states the witnesses and evidence of both parties, as well as the respective purpose of the offer of evidence. Divinagracia argued that while the defense has the right to due process as much as the prosecution does, such right to due process should not be used unfairly by the defense. “Your Honor, since the beginning of this proceedings, the defense has been invoking due process as if it were a magic wand that could straightjack the prosecution. It is not only the defense who has the right to due process. Even the prosecution is entitled to due process. We are entitled to know what we are working on, Your Honor. The theories of their case, Your Honor. We're already at the 11th hour, Your Honor. Wala pa rin [iyong sagot sa kung alias ba o hindi]. Ano ba yung position, Your Honor?,” Divinagracia said. Defense team lead counsel Sheila Sison responded by saying that the defense has the right to present their defense at the appropriate time as much as the prosecution has the discretion which evidence to present. “The counsel appears to be interested in finding out about the position of the defense but she may perhaps have neglected the basic and the most essential idea of a fair trial and that is for the prosecution to first discharge its burden of proof. And until the prosecution hurdles that burden, then the defense may even remain silent,” Sison said. “In fact, we are just in the second Article of Impeachment [in terms of presenting evidence]. I respect the predicament of the good counsel. However, if we want a fair trial, the people need to see the evidence of the prosecution first instead of complaining what the defense is not showing here precisely because this is not yet the time of the defense to present its evidence or whether we will even present evidence if the proper time comes, Your Honor,” Sison added. Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis Escudero ruled in favor of Sison and said the defense may present its evidence after the prosecution, and it can even file a demurrer to evidence, meaning ask the court without to dismiss the case without presenting its own evidence on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is weak. — RSJ, GMA News