Court orders prosecution, defense to compare OVP confi fund receipts

The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday directed the prosecution and defense panels in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte to agree on a date to compare the 845 acknowledgment receipts (ARs) submitted by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in liquidating its P125 million confidential funds in 2022.

Senate impeachment court presiding officer Francis "Chiz" Escudero issued the directive after ordering both parties to meet before the Senate Clerk of Court outside the trial proceedings to compare their separately marked copies of the ARs.

"[The] Court so directs the parties to fix a date and be present before the Clerk of Court to compare the ARs they separately marked and confirm which ones are the same and which ones are different, for whatever purpose it may serve both parties, given that they are commonly marked," Escudero said during the 13th day of Duterte's impeachment trial.

During Wednesday's proceedings, the House prosecution panel presented Commission on Audit–Intelligence and Confidential Funds Audit Office (COA-ICFAO) state auditor Xylene del Campo as its second witness on Article I of the impeachment complaint.

Article I accuses Duterte of committing impeachable offenses through the alleged systematic misappropriation and irregular liquidation of P500 million in confidential funds released to the OVP and P112.5 million released to the Department of Education (DepEd) during her tenure as Education secretary.

During the formal offer of testimony, private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said Del Campo took over the audit of the OVP and DepEd confidential funds after the reassignment of former COA-ICFAO state auditor Roderick Wamil, who had earlier testified for the prosecution.

Kapunan told the impeachment court that the witness would have to testify on more than 4,000 documents after the defense panel declined to enter into a joint stipulation on them.

Concerned that reviewing the voluminous records could take considerable time, Escudero instructed Del Campo to examine the documentary evidence after Wednesday's hearing so she would be prepared to testify when the trial resumes on Monday, August 10.

However, defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer objected to having the examination of the documents conducted outside the court proceedings.

Ferrer also said the defense has its own copies of the marked ARs.

'Opportunity'

While emphasizing that the court was not compelling the defense to stipulate to the documents, Escudero said comparing the parties' respective copies outside trial hours could streamline the proceedings and save the court valuable time.

"The court views it perhaps as an opportunity to provide an avenue for possible stipulation as to the ARs that you did not stipulate," Escudero said.

"Perhaps we can set a date for possible stipulation on the ARs—not really for the witness to confirm them—but for possible stipulation," he added.

Ferrer again objected, saying the defense would not stipulate on the ARs because the OVP and DepEd no longer had control over the documents after they were submitted to the COA.

"Therefore, we do not know which receipts were provided by the COA and how many receipts were given by the COA to the prosecution," she said.

Kapunan then offered to use the defense's copies of the ARs instead, eliminating the need for both sides to compare the documents.

She proposed that the comparison be conducted before the Senate Clerk of Court and suggested that the prosecution use the defense's copies of the ARs "to restore a level of trust on the side of the defense."

"Let us use the defense's documents instead of the prosecution's documents so we won't have to keep comparing them. [We can have] Thursday and Friday—I still want to watch Odyssey," Kapunan said, drawing laughter in the session hall.

Ferrer later agreed to Escudero's proposal, provided the defense would not be compelled to stipulate on the ARs and that the comparison would be held on a mutually agreed date.

Escudero clarified that the court was merely giving both sides another opportunity to determine whether the ARs in their possession were identical.

"All that the court is asking is for an opportunity for the parties once more to compare your respective marked ARs and determine whether they are the same or not, regardless of whatever purpose or theory each party may have with respect to presenting the ARs, given that there are common exhibits," he said.

He stressed that the exercise would not touch on issues of authenticity or admissibility.

"We will not touch on that, counsel for the respondent. Your concerns with respect to authenticity and purpose will not be touched. Only insofar as determining whether it is the same AR that you received, the same AR that you sent to the COA, and the same AR being presented," Escudero said.

"If there are ARs that you did not send to the COA or did not come from you, then you can point that out, as may be appropriate," he added. — MCG, GMA News