‘Watusi?’: House prosecutor says defense witnesses’ testimonies ‘not explosive’

MANILA (UPDATED)- Lead House Prosecutor Gerville Luistro described as “non-explosive” the testimonies of the first set of witnesses presented by the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial.

She compared them to a small low-grade firecracker, saying they only talked about transactions with amounts far below the P817 million alleged unexplained wealth attributed to Duterte.

Luistro believes that the defense witnesses’ testimonies even helped the prosecution’s case.

She said they failed to explain the estimated P817 million in alleged unexplained wealth, which Duterte is accused of amassing.

 “We were anticipating explosive testimonies and/or evidence. But apparently, hindi nga ito kwitis eh. Watusi pa yata ito. Sapakat they’re testifying on the very small portion of what was reported already by the expert witness, Atty. Alex Cabrera,” Luistro explained.

 “P10 million, P4 million, P80,000 ‘yung compensation na ipinapaliwanag nila allegedly received in 2023, plus itong Nike and credit card transaction valued in the amount of more or less P250,000… What the prosecution was able to prove is P817 million undeclared, unexplained property of the respondent Vice President. Napakalayo ng amount,” she added.

 Luistro and House Prosecutor Joel Chua sees a “bloodbath” in Duterte’s impeachment trial, but they said it is happening on the side of the Defense.

 The Vice President previously said she wanted a blood bath in her impeachment trial.

“Duguan na sila. So far, hanggang ngayon ‘di pa tumatama ‘yung suntok nila sa prosecution. Naglabas ng ebidensya ang prosecution, bugbog po sila. Naglabas po ng ebidensya at testigo ang defense, mas lalu po silang nabugbog at duguan na po sila. Ngayon, ayaw pa nila matapos? Masokista na po ang  tawag d’yan.” Chua said.

“If at all mayroon silang na-establish, ang na-establish nila ay ‘yung prosecution’s case. ‘Yun ‘yung sinasabi ni Cong. Joel na masokista. Pero may ibang term ‘yan sa Japan: harakiri,” Luistro added.

Luistro also made this clarification on the prosecution’s line of questioning regarding the credit card transaction of Duterte’s husband Atty. Manases Carpio amounting to P256,882.50 at Nike Pavilion in Kuala Lumpur.

Senator-judge Pia Cayetano strongly objected to the prosecution’s line of questioning, and asked whether a parent who becomes a public official should be expected to give up decisions concerning their children’s upbringing, including supporting their participation in sports and providing opportunities for their teammates.

 “Huwag natin iligaw ang taumbayan. We wish to commend them sapagkat mayroon silang generosity in supporting the basketball players. But that is not the issue. The issue is mayroong hindi maipaliwanag na yaman. P817M. Is this the reason why they can afford to pay that amount of restaurant bill and that amount of purchases in Nike shoes,” Luistro explained.

 Asked about allegations that some lawmakers have a lavish lifestyle, Chua dared accusers to have them investigated.

 “Kung mayroon man po, edi paimbestigahan po nila. Pero ang usaping ito ay impeachment kasi. Hindi mga myembro ng Kamara ang nakasalang dito at under scrutiny. Ang subject ng impeachment na ito ay ang bise presidente,” he said.

 “May ethics committee kami, so kung may reklamo man, doon ibinabagsak ‘yun. Ang issue kasi rito is impeachment. Hindi naman subject sa impeachment ang mga myembro ng Senado at Kamara. Kung mayroon man nakikita silang mali, wala namang dahilan o wala namang pumipigil na ito ay ibagsak sa ethics committee o kung saan man,” Chua added.

 Luistro, meanwhile, laughed off claims she is “lavish” over a necklace she wore in a photo.

 “Natatawa ako ha. SM lang ‘yan… Do not easily believe on social media. Kung gusto n’yo ibigay ko sa inyo ‘yan. Check n’yo with SM,” Luistro said.