MANILA – House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno challenged the defense panel’s objections to the presentation of financial records and forensic evidence during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Friday, October 9, insisting that the Senate impeachment court had already authorized the presentation of the documents.
During Day 37 of the proceedings, Diokno responded to lead defense counsel Sheila Sison, who maintained a continuing objection to the prosecution’s presentation of financial forensic analyst Atty. Alexander Cabrera as an expert witness.
Diokno disputed Sison’s characterization of the evidence as a supposed forensic report and defended Cabrera’s participation in the proceedings.
“In the first place, I would like to correct the good defense counsel. It’s not a supposed forensic report. It is a forensic report. The person is not a stranger. He’s name is Atty. Alexander B. Cabrera,” Diokno said.
The House prosecutor also questioned the defense’s repeated invocation of confidentiality in opposing the presentation of financial documents.
“The defense has been repeatedly saying that these matters are confidential. I would like to correct again the defense because these matters have been allowed by the honorable court. Matagal ko na pong sinasabi na hindi confidential ang katotohanan,” Diokno asserted.
He argued that the impeachment court had already permitted the presentation of records from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), banks and insurance companies.
“At alam naman po natin na pinayagan ni Presiding Officer ‘yung BIR records, Anti-Money Laundering records, bank records, insurance company records. Ano po ang pinagsasabi nilang confidential?” he added.
The exchange followed the defense’s earlier objections to Cabrera’s participation, including questions over the absence of a court-issued subpoena and his authority to access financial records involving Duterte, her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, and businesses associated with them.
Sison maintained the defense’s objection to Cabrera’s presentation as an expert witness and raised concerns about displaying the documents during the proceedings.
Diokno, however, maintained that the court’s previous authorization supported the prosecution’s presentation of the financial records.
The disagreement highlighted the continuing dispute between the prosecution and defense over the admissibility, confidentiality and handling of financial evidence in the impeachment trial.
Diokno’s statements reflected the prosecution’s position and did not, by themselves, establish that every document or proposed use of the records was free from confidentiality restrictions.
