Defense flags prosecutors’ media statements over sub judice rule

MANILA — The defense of Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday asked the Senate impeachment court to look into public statements by House prosecutors criticizing its first witness, arguing that the remarks may have violated the court’s sub judice rules.

Defense counsel Sheila Sison raised the concern after prosecutors publicly questioned the testimony of Davao City Assessor Engineer Jaime Adalin, who appeared as the defense’s first witness on Monday.

At a post-hearing press conference, House prosecution spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong said Adalin had “failed miserably” in trying to establish that a property acquired by Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, was declared in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

Private prosecutor Joel Chua also earlier described Adalin’s testimony as a “weakness” for the defense, citing inconsistencies in his answers. 

Sison said the defense would submit links to the prosecution’s press conference and statements made by private prosecutor Jay Tolosa over the weekend for the court’s consideration.

“We just want to bring it to the attention of the court certain of what we think are sub judice statements made by some of the prosecutors,” she said.

She argued that the statements went beyond fair comment because they discussed the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence presented during the trial.

“And these statements, not only go into a fair comment. In fact they go into the probative value of their supposed cross examination and of the weight of the evidence presented by the defense yesterday and of the testimony given by the witnesses. That’s our concern, your honor,” Sison said.

She invoked the impeachment court’s November 5 order reiterating that Rule 18 on sub judice applies to all articles of impeachment.

Impeachment court presiding officer Chiz Escudero noted two sets of statements, including those made over the weekend and after Monday’s proceedings.

Tolosa, meanwhile, said the prosecution was also reserving the right to seek a formal declaration that the defense had violated the same rule.

“We also reserve the right to file corresponding motions for declarations of violations of sub judice rule as well,” he said.

He also raised concerns over what he described as repeated attacks against the integrity of the impeachment court and its senator-judges.

Tolosa also sought to have portions of the defense counsel’s earlier statements stricken from the records, disputing its characterization of the prosecution’s position on the disputed property.

He clarified that the prosecution was not questioning whether the property existed, but whether the property covered by the title was actually declared in Duterte’s SALN.

Sison earlier argued that it would have been easy for the prosecution to present another set of tax declaration documents, registration documents, deed of sale, among other documents, regarding the property in the SALN of Duterte to show that it is different, but the prosecution did not, because the property is allegedly the same.

The prosecution has argued that the property acquired by Carpio for P6 million in July 2024 could not be conclusively matched with a P10-million property listed in Duterte’s 2024 SALN, citing discrepancies in the documents.

“The statement a while ago that the prosecution very well knows that these two properties are one at the same, that has no basis, your honor,” he said.

Sison countered Tolosa’s remarks, saying: “It’s just bewildering to hear the prosecution counsel say that we’re making conclusions of law when he just made one.”

The impeachment court had reiterated on November 5 that the sub judice rule applies to all four articles of impeachment.