Senate Court Takes Judicial Notice of House Hearings in Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial

The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday took judicial notice of the hearings and certain records of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. In granting the prosecution's motion, Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero stressed that the judicial notice is limited to recognizing the factual existence and official character of the House committee hearings. It also covers the transcripts, audio-visual recordings, and committee reports produced during the legislative inquiry into Duterte's alleged misuse of confidential funds. "The chair will make a ruling granting the motion, with the reminder—a stern reminder and warning—that the court is acting on the motion for judicial notice dated August 3, seeking judicial notice of the existence and official character of the hearings and the corresponding transcripts, audio-visual recordings, and committee reports identified therein," Escudero said. In legal procedure, judicial notice means a court officially recognizes that something exists or that a fact is true without requiring a party to prove it through evidence. Escudero explained that the ruling merely recognizes that the House inquiry was conducted in the exercise of the committee's official functions and that the transcripts, official audio-visual recordings, and committee reports exist as official records of those proceedings. He added that the House records enjoy the presumption of regularity accorded to official proceedings unless there is proof of fraud, falsity, or inaccuracy sufficient to overcome that presumption. "The prosecution is therefore expressly reminded—not warned, but reminded—that judicial notice shall not be used as a vehicle to place into the record the substantive contents of the transcripts, recordings, or committee reports," he said. "It is not a substitute for the presentation and formal offer of competent evidence, nor does it dispense with the applicable rules on authentication, hearsay, relevance, and the right of the respondent to object to and confront the evidence presented against her," he added. Before Escudero's ruling, defense counsel Kristine Ferrer objected to the motion, arguing that the defense is challenging the House proceedings before the Supreme Court, describing the inquiry as a "fishing expedition" and a "mini-trial." Ferrer also argued that the House transcripts, audio-visual recordings, and committee reports contain disputed facts that must first be authenticated and subjected to cross-examination before they can be admitted as evidence. — MCG, GMA News