Senate court allows financial analyst to testify in Sara Duterte trial

MANILA — The Senate impeachment court on Friday allowed a financial forensic analyst, a witness from the prosecution, to stand trial after the lead counsel for Vice President Sara Duterte questioned his authority and the manner in which he obtained documents to arrive with findings.

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison repeatedly insisted in her exchange with House prosecutor Chel Diokno that the financial records of Duterte and her husband were “confidential.” 

To hand the documents over to lawyer Alexander Cabrera, a financial forensic financial analyst, would be questionable given that the court at times ordered documents to be redacted to comply with privacy laws, she added.

“Upon whose authority did this witness able to take possession of, examine documents that are confidential by nature and protected by law?” Sison inquired the court.

Presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero clarified that there was no special subpoena had been issued for documents to be furnished Cabrera.

Escudero noted that lawyers in general are allowed to seek the assistance of other lawyers, investigators or non-lawyers and furnish them pieces of evidence they legally obtained.

Diokno issued a similar argument and explained that when one side in a court case engages an expert, “naturally they must provide that expert with the information that is necessary for that expert to come up with findings.”

“It is no different in this case that it is in ordinary criminal or civil cases,” he said, noting that they provided the expert with documents that they gathered through subpoenas issued by the Senate impeachment court.

Notably, the defense also intended to present its own forensic expert during their time to present their evidence, Escudero pointed out, citing the pre-trial order.

He said he would be applying the same ruling to the forensic expert to be presented by the defense panel should they decide to do so.

Any statements made by expert witnesses in the trial are neither conclusive nor binding, Escudero noted later in the proceeding, and it is up to senator-judges “to give accorded weight they want to give to the experts’ opinions.”