By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday granted the defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte additional time to examine thousands of confidential fund documents submitted by the House prosecution, in a move aimed at streamlining trial proceedings without compelling the respondent to concede the authenticity of the evidence.
Presiding Officer Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordered both parties to revisit the documentary evidence after the defense refused to stipulate the authenticity of 4,492 acknowledgment receipts (ARs) covering confidential fund transactions of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd) from the fourth quarter of 2022 through the first three quarters of 2023.
The issue surfaced during the testimony of Commission on Audit–Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) auditor Xylene del Campo, who began identifying and authenticating the voluminous records presented by the prosecution.
Proceedings slowed considerably as Del Campo painstakingly matched the receipts with documentary listings previously identified by former COA auditor Roderick Wamil, prompting both camps to debate whether a more efficient process could be adopted.
House prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan argued that the lengthy authentication could have been avoided had the defense agreed to stipulate the documents, describing the delay as a consequence of the defense’s refusal to recognize the records for purposes of trial.
Kapunan initially proposed allowing the witness to complete the document comparison outside regular court proceedings before resuming her testimony, but the defense objected, insisting that documentary identification must take place in open court to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
Defense counsel Kristine Ferrer maintained that the respondent could not automatically acknowledge the prosecution’s copies because the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education no longer had custody of the acknowledgment receipts after these were submitted to the Commission on Audit.
She argued that the defense could not independently verify whether the documents presented by the prosecution were identical to those originally transmitted to COA.
Seeking to break the impasse, Escudero proposed giving the defense another opportunity to examine the records before trial resumes, emphasizing that the court was not compelling the respondent to stipulate to the documents but merely encouraging both parties to determine whether any uncontested evidence could be identified.
The defense eventually agreed to participate in the review, provided it would not be required to admit or stipulate the authenticity of any document against its will.
To address concerns raised by the defense, Kapunan also offered to use the defense’s own marked copies of the records instead of the prosecution’s photocopies if doing so would eliminate questions regarding the authenticity of the documentary evidence.
After hearing both sides, Escudero ruled that the defense would be given additional time to review the thousands of acknowledgment receipts in hopes of narrowing the issues before the court and avoiding unnecessary delays in the presentation of evidence.
The two parties have yet to finalize the schedule for the joint review of the documents. Del Campo was directed to return to the witness stand when the impeachment court resumes its proceedings on August 10, when the authentication of the confidential fund records is expected to continue.
ia/xf
