A legal spokesperson of the House Prosecution team said that there were a total of 51 common witnesses listed during the first day of the pre-trial conference for the upcoming impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Atty. Jay Tolosa, a newly-introduced member of the private prosecutors, said that the 51 witnesses were part of the 97 total personalities that the camp of Duterte indicated in their pre-trial brief.

Tolosa noted, however, that the defense may not be fully inclined to present all of the individuals as their opposition had only requested a total of 30 trial dates.

For their part, the lawyer stated that they had sought for 62 days from the impeachment court clerk to present all of their evidence. A matter that he explained could be subject to change based on the guidelines of the trial.

“This could change during trial, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we will need 62 days for example, because if the court would allow us to present for example two witnesses per day, it will be shorter,” he said.

“It will depend on how it will actually unfold during the trial,” he added.

Aside from similar witnesses, Tolosa stated that the defense had “copied” a majority of their evidence as out of their 276 exhibits, 248 were also supposedly listed for the defense.

During a previous press conference, House prosecution spokesperson Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong had labeled the pre-trial brief of Duterte’s camp as an “empty can” due to the supposed lack of answers that the document provided to the allegations against their client.

Adiong pointed out that two particular articles of impeachment that were not fully addressed were the alleged misuse of confidential funds and the Vice President’s unexplained wealth.

“It was empty, you know the sound that empty can makes, it is very loud. The pre-trial brief that was submitted by the defense, it did not offer an answer to the questions,” he stated.

“So these are the primary questions that we want to be answered, the public wants answered. But in the pre-trial brief, what we saw was a lack of evidence, arguments, or answers to debunk or explain how the confidential funds were used and why her SALN did not reflect the income she was taking in,” he expressed.

The lawmaker pointed out that the defense had previously mentioned numerous times that Duterte was fully prepared to answer the accusations through the “proper forum” which was implied to be the Senate that stands as the impeachment court based on the Constitution.

However, instead of giving actual answers, Adiong said that the Vice President simply deferred to her previous tactic of questioning the technicalities and the constitutionality of the proceedings that were undertaken at the House of Representatives.

“This is the proper forum. But what they’re raising are their usual complaints, usual objections, which is more on the procedural and question of constitutionality. That’s why we said that it was lengthy but lacked substance,” he said.

Adiong noted that the defense was wasting their opportunity to present counter-evidence regarding the allegations against their client.

He posited that there may be two reasons why the camp of the Vice President continues to refuse directly facing the allegations–they have no answer or they’re avoiding to answer.

The second day of the pre-trial conference resumed this Monday, 22 June.