Metro Manila, Philippines – Malacañang said it sees no grounds for a mistrial in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment case despite the House prosecution panel’s decision to withdraw three of four impeachment articles, noting that her defense team had ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Communications Undersecretary Claire Castro said Thursday, Oct. 15, that the withdrawal did not deprive Duterte of due process because her lawyers had participated in the proceedings and questioned prosecution witnesses.
“Pero sa sitwasyon na ito, walang masasabing mistrial because they were given ample time and opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the prosecution,” Castro said during a Palace briefing.
[Translation: In this situation, there can be no mistrial because the defense was given ample time and opportunities to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.]
Speaking in her personal capacity as a trial lawyer, Castro said a mistrial could arise if a party were denied the opportunity to present evidence or challenge witnesses.
“Ang mistrial kasi kapag sinabi natin, the other party was not given any chance to present herself; he was not given the chance to present evidence. But in this case, since nagkaroon ng cross-examination, generally and personally on my part, hindi siya matatawag na mistrial,” she said.
[Translation: A mistrial arises when a party is not given the opportunity to present its case or evidence. But because cross-examination took place, I personally would not consider this a mistrial.]
Castro also pointed out that Duterte’s lawyers did not formally object to the prosecution’s motion to withdraw the three articles.
She cited an exchange during the impeachment proceedings in which Presiding Officer Francis Escudero asked defense lead counsel Sheila Sison whether the defense’s manifestation should be treated as an objection.
“Ang defense team, ang mga lawyers ng bise presidente, hindi sila nagbigay ng anumang objection; manifestation lang ang kanilang sinabi,” Castro said.
[Translation: The vice president’s lawyers did not raise any objection. They only made a manifestation.]
The House prosecution panel withdrew Articles I (confidential fund misuse), III (bribery), and IV (grave threat), leaving only Article II, which covers allegations of unexplained wealth, false Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth, and failure to divest business interests..
The defense has questioned whether Duterte was denied the chance to fully answer allegations already presented in court before the prosecution abandoned the charges.
The Senate Impeachment Court has accepted the withdrawal of the three articles as the prosecution is poised to rest its case, and the defense will take its turn to present evidence.
