MANILA – House prosecutor Chel Diokno accused defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer of misrepresenting the previous testimony of forensic financial analyst Alexander Cabrera during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday, October 12.
The exchange occurred as Ferrer questioned Cabrera about his professional background and qualifications as a forensic accounting expert.
“Even if you focused your entire career in taxation and only devoted about a year in external audit as a tax staff accountant, you still consider yourself as a forensic accounting expert,” Ferrer asked.
“That’s right po,” Cabrera replied.
Diokno immediately raised an objection, prompting Ferrer to argue that the witness had already answered the question.
“Your honor, already answered is not an excuse for the objection to be made. That’s very clear in Section 39,” Diokno said.
Presiding Officer Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero then asked the prosecutor to clarify the grounds for his objection.
Diokno requested that Ferrer’s question be repeated, arguing that it may have inaccurately characterized Cabrera’s earlier testimony.
“If I recall the question, good counsel here misled the testimony or misdeclared the testimony of the witness last week,” Diokno said.
Escudero asked whether the objection was based on the question being misleading.
Diokno confirmed this but maintained that he wanted to hear the question again to identify the specific portion he considered objectionable.
Ferrer defended her questioning, saying Cabrera understood the question and had responded voluntarily.
“We believe that the witness is an intelligent witness and he fully understood and in fact responded to the question,” Ferrer said.
The exchange highlighted disagreements between the prosecution and defense over how Cabrera’s professional experience and previous testimony should be characterized during cross-examination.
Cabrera’s qualifications came under scrutiny as the defense continued examining the basis of his forensic financial analysis presented before the impeachment court.
