MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutors pushed back against two proposed stipulations by Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team on Monday, November 9, describing them as misleading while agreeing only to establish basic facts concerning the defense’s first witness.
During the 40th day of the Senate impeachment trial, private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. made clear that the prosecution was prepared to acknowledge the official position and personal knowledge of Davao City Assessor Engr. Jaime Adalin but would not automatically accept the defense’s other assertions.
“We’re willing to stipulate regarding the position of this witness and that he has personal knowledge regarding the issuance of the tax declaration covered by the TCT mentioned during the offer,” Tolosa told the impeachment court.
However, Tolosa objected to the defense’s second and third proposed stipulations, arguing that they were misleading.
The prosecution’s position drew a distinction between acknowledging Adalin’s authority and familiarity with property documents and accepting the conclusions the defense sought to establish through his testimony.
By agreeing only to the first stipulation, prosecutors avoided unnecessarily disputing the witness’s official capacity while maintaining their objections to the defense’s remaining assertions.
The disagreement emerged as Duterte’s legal team began presenting evidence in response to the remaining impeachment charge involving alleged unexplained wealth.
Adalin, the defense’s first witness, was presented in connection with property records, including a tax declaration associated with a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
The prosecution’s objections highlighted the continuing dispute over how property-related documents should be interpreted and whether the defense’s proposed stipulations accurately reflected the facts.
Although the prosecution accepted Adalin’s personal knowledge concerning the issuance of the tax declaration, that acknowledgment did not establish the accuracy of every claim the defense sought to advance.
The distinction is significant because the impeachment proceedings involve questions surrounding Duterte’s declared assets, financial transactions, and property interests.
Prosecutors have been examining financial and property records as part of their effort to establish the allegations under the remaining impeachment article.
The defense, meanwhile, is seeking to challenge the prosecution’s evidence and present its own explanation of the transactions and documents under scrutiny.
Tolosa’s objections underscored the prosecution’s insistence that disputed assertions must be supported by evidence rather than treated as established facts through stipulation.
The Senate impeachment court will determine the admissibility and evidentiary weight of the testimony and documents presented by both sides.
The allegations against Duterte remain subject to the impeachment court’s determination, and the prosecution’s objections do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing.
