DUTERTE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL (Week 2)

By Edwin Espejo

    Finding Momentum

Entering into the second week of the Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the prosecution has maintained that it has stayed the course of its argument – establishing as a factual matter, that the respondent uttered threatening words

The week earlier, its first witness was described as an expert or competent witness in digital forensics. Agent John Mark Calilung turns out to be wanting in cyber forensic expertise. Anyone can download a streamed video but only a qualified expert can authenticate its evidentiary integrity. More critically, he admitted to having no personal information as to the identity of the alleged person instructed to kill the Marcos Jr, Liza Marcos and Romualdez in the supposed threat uttered by the Vice President on 23 November 2024

The prosecution was thus expected to deliver the promise: a witness who will prove that an assassin has been hired to executive the threat.

The prosecution likewise named three others to testify in the hearing for the week.

Next to be presented was lawyer Jeremy Lotoc who headed the anti-cybercrime unit of the National Bureau of Investigation at the time the reported threat was made.

Same counsel for the prosecution, lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan, made his appearance and proceeded to direct the witness with few objections raised by the defense counsel, this time represented by lawyer Mark Vinluan. Unlike the week before, Atty. CJ Narvasa made at least 25 during the direct testimony of the first witness.

The direct examination began as dull and repetitious-until it was not.

When it was the turn of the defense to cross, things started to get interesting.

While the defense counsel figuratively and physically appeared to be meek, its cross examination of the witness was methodical, sharp and piercing. Vinluan tore apart large parts of Lotoc’s testimony. From conflicting details of marked exhibits to seemingly irreconcilable chronological order and simple but fatal negligence to review and correct their contents.

It was an ambush.

REVISED

The most telling slip was when both the counsel of prosecution and witness insisted and objected to the repeated claim of the defense counsel that an affidavit was revised only to suddenly fall silent when read with the NBI’s own letter of the submission of a revised affidavit.

One could have heard the pin drop. The defense confronted the prosecution of its own document read aloud and the reverberation was felt across the country.

During the redirect, the counsel for the prosecution was able to salvage some points and skillfully directed his witness to go back to the narrative consistent with its primary allegation that the threat was “real” and “active” and that typographical slips and other infirmities in the submissions will not negate the threat uttered that was likewise heard and seen live and its replays.

So where did the testimony of the first two witness gain and score points and where did it fail to establish?

Like the previous witness, Lotoc was repeatedly grilled if he has direct and personal knowledge of any person who was reportedly contracted to carry out the ‘kill’ contract. In so many words but with little evidence, he could only admit that he did not have personal knowledge other than being sure that the threat was made. His testimony was largely anchored on personal opinion and was short in grounded facts.

How did the defense make significant inroads?

Without openly admitting or denying the vice president make the threat, the defense was able to push an argument that it was made in the context of so many events that took place before.

Many are now, and even before the trial started, asking for evidence from the camp of respondent to bolster its emerging line of defense but was appropriately declining to as it was not yet its turn to present its own if there is indeed a need.

That would be interesting.

RETREAT OR RE-ITERATE

The week ended with three major occurrences. And one significant event to anticipate heading into Week 3.

First, instead of a detonating a bomb as promised, the prosecution panel dropped its supposed bombs.

The prosecution announced it will no longer call to the witness stand one potential hostile witness and several low-key functionaries who may not be able to add up to what testimonies were already declared in open court.

It announced the withdrawal with a lengthy discourse from lead prosecutor Rep. Gervel Luistro which immediately drew reaction from Lead Counsel of the defense panel, Atty. Sheila Sison. Their exchange prompted Presiding Judge Francis Escudero to apologize and remind both panels to be, henceforth, circumspect with manifestations that tend to establish stipulation of facts and of laws at this stage of the trial.

Was it a retreat by the prosecution or was the withdrawal a reinforcement its earlier argument as it claimed?

Second, the Senate struck down a request from a prosecution witness to advance his appearance, no less than the NBI director himself whose agency is the main and may be the only source of evidence for this article of impeachment.

Third, the court announced it will render its decision Monday next week whether to grant or deny the request for several subpoena issuances by the prosecution.

Which was preceded by a very educational and very passionate oral manifestation from both parties in the impeachment trial.

Both prosecution and defense were eloquent, succinct and powerful with their arguments. One read from a prepared text; the other delivered extemporaneously.

How the optics and soundbites will come across to those who hear and saw them may not affect the outcome of the trial. But they will certainly polarize even more the already decided segments of our population.