MANILA — Former FEU Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria believes the defense team may have unintentionally bolstered the prosecution’s evidence in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment proceedings by relying on the same video recording presented by prosecutors.
The impeachment court is currently examining allegations that Duterte threatened President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. Prosecutors introduced a video recording and testimony from NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung to establish its authenticity.
Sta. Maria said that if the defense intended to dispute the recording, it should have focused on questioning the integrity of the digital file itself.
“The proper approach would have been to attack the digital evidence and show that its integrity was compromised.”
However, he noted that the defense instead presented segments of the same video during cross-examination to provide context for Duterte’s statements.
“By using the same video as part of their questioning, it becomes difficult to argue that the recording is not authentic,”
Sta. Maria described this as a key moment where the prosecution gained an advantage.
He also said the NBI’s authentication process, which involved generating a hash value or digital signature, made any challenge to the recording more difficult because even a minor alteration would be detectable.
According to Sta. Maria, the defense did not substantially dispute the technical process used to verify the file. Instead, the questioning focused more on the witness’s motivations, political considerations, and related affidavits.
He further observed that the defense appeared to concede that Duterte made the statement, while arguing that it was protected by freedom of expression and did not amount to an impeachable offense.
“The argument was not that she never said it, but that the statement should not be considered an impeachable offense,”
In a Facebook post, Sta. Maria maintained that the defense weakened its own position by failing to demonstrate through cross-examination that the video had been manipulated.
He said that without proving the recording was doctored, efforts to justify or contextualize the statement carried less weight in challenging the prosecution’s evidence.
elamigo/xf
