Duterte defense: 'Unusual' withdrawal claim opinion, not an issue

MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte, during the trial’s 10th day on Wednesday, July 29, almost totally avoided a cross-examination of the witnesses from Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank). Defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa said he did not cross-examine first witness Violeta Constantino, former Landbank Shaw Boulevard branch manager, because he did not find any concerns about her testimony on the withdrawal of Office of the Vice President (OVP) cheques worth P500 million. It’s not even part of their legal strategy, according to Poa. “Wala namang questionable, wala namang damaging na nailabas ang ating witness. At regular lang naman na ‘yong witness ay nag-identify ng mga cheque at hindi naman natin kinu-question ‘yon. So, I didn’t want to prolong the proceedings and, you know, be petty by asking questions pa kung hindi naman kinakailangan,” the spokesperson told reporters during a press conference. (There’s no questionable or damaging detail that the witness testified to. And it’s regular for the witness to identify the cheque, and we’re not questioning that. So I didn’t want to prolong the proceedings and, you know, be petty by asking unnecessary questions.) Prosecutor Joel Chua’s presentation on Wednesday focused on the first article of impeachment which alleges misuse of confidential funds by Duterte’s offices. The hearing discussed the supposed withdrawals of the OVP from the Landbank Shaw Boulevard branch amounting to P500 million, and Department of Education’s (DepEd) withdrawal from the Landbank DepEd branch amounting to P37.5 million. Constantino and former DepEd Landbank branch manager Nenita Camposano processed these cheques. Both witnesses said the withdrawals were “unusual,” but not “suspicious.” Under the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s (AMLC) guidelines, covered transactions should be reported to the AMLC. These include transactions exceeding P500,000, among others. Meanwhile, authorities may tag a transaction “suspicious” if it’s inconsistent in amount, origin, or type with the customer’s business or financial profile. Poa did not cross-examine the witnesses on their use of the word “unusual,” because he said this was the opinion of the bank managers. “I don’t see how it will affect the case,” the defense spokesperson explained. “Hindi naman siya matter at issue dito. Hindi naman kine-question ‘yong validity noong encashment, ‘di ba? (It’s not a matter nor an issue here. We’re not questioning the validity of the encashment). So, I really didn’t, I thought it was petty, ‘no? For us to even dwell on that.” During the Wednesday trial, Poa asked only one question during the cross-examination directed to Camposano. This was in connection with her testimony that former former DepEd special disbursing officer Edward Fajarda encashed the three cheques worth P37.5 million, and then left the branch through the fire exit. Poa tried to establish that Fajarda went through the fire exit because it’s nearer to the DepEd building, and not due to any other reason. “Para lang hindi na magkaroon ng any negative connotation kung bakit ba sa fire exit, in-explain lang natin kung nasaan ba talaga ang Landbank DepEd, which is inside the DepEd compound,” he said. (To avoid any negative connotation on the use of fire exit, we explained where the Landbank DepEd is, which is inside the DepEd compound.) Objection to De Lima’s opening statement Unlike in the past trial dates, the defense did not raise many objections on Day 10. In fact, Poa objected only to prosecutor Leila de Lima’s opening statement regarding the confidential funds issue. From the start, Poa objected to De Lima’s speech, saying the remarks contained conclusions of facts and law. De Lima continued, but was cut short by another objection on the same ground. Ultimately, she cut short her opening statement due to the continuing objection. “This is with all due respect to Representative De Lima. I have the utmost respect for her so I did not mean to offend her at all,” said Poa. “Nailalahad na doon (in the opening statements) ‘yong mga paratang nila at nabibigyan na ng konklusyon na may maling nagawa ang ating bise president. At sa pananaw ng defense, dapat ‘yon ay, kung baga… Sa kanila’y pinapatunayan nila through their witnesses and not through statements,” he added. (The allegations and conclusion that the vice president committed a wrongdoing were being told in the opening statements. For the defense, that should be done through their witnesses and not through statements.) Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison, on July 15, manifested that statements from the parties should not include conclusions of law and facts because these things are matters that only the impeachment court can decide on. The court then ruled that manifestations should not have conclusive remarks. Poa also agreed to stipulate some facts during the hearing. The defense agreed with the prosecution on the authenticity of the cheques; that the witnesses were competent to identify them; as well as on the authenticity of the signatures on these financial records. Stipulations are “admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof.” These are done to save time during trials and avoid unnecessary discussions. Objection to change in evidence presentation On Tuesday, the prosecution proposed to the Senate impeachment court to alternate with the defense team on the presentation of evidence. Based on the original sequence, the prosecution will present all its evidence on the four articles of impeachment, then after that, the defense will present its own evidence against the allegations in these articles. The prosecution wanted the defense to present its own evidence on the fourth article, grave threats, since the House wrapped up its presentation on this last week. However, the defense objected to this manifestation. “To compel the respondent to undergo a trial in which she is required to present evidence per Article before the Prosecution has even discharged its burden to prove its accusations against her is to effectively shift this burden on the respondent, thereby violating her constitutional rights to due process and presumption of innocence. This reversal of burden simply has no place in our system of laws,” said the defense in its response. Since the defense objected, the sequence will remain as is. The prosecution will continue its presentation of evidence on the confidential funds issue next week, August 3. – Rappler.com