Impeachment Court grants Prosecution ability to present portions of VP Sara public statements

In his objection to the motion, defense lawyer Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa sought for the entire video to be played as he was of the belief that a mere segment of an entire clip would not be able to establish the context for the utterances of their client.

Narvasa argued that one of the rules of impeachment indicated under rule 132 section 17 wherein it states that if a part of a record given in evidence was sought to be presented by a particular party, the rest of the said record is deemed admissible.

It further noted that all of the same evidence could also be inquired by the opposing party if it wishes to do so as part of its own presentation.

Ligutan would later point out, however, that the rule was in favor of the prosecution given that such a guideline had actually warranted them to present their evidence as they pleased.

“This rule section 17 rule 132 allows exactly the prosecution to present a two minute portion of a two hour video subject to the defense the presentation of the same,” he said.

In an attempt to mitigate and resolve the issue further, senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano sought to properly identify whether it was the intention of the defense to fully present the entire press conference during their own presentation of evidence.

To the question, Narvasa answered, “Precisely why we’re asking to watch the video is because we don’t know what the contents of that video is, we don’t know if it’s any different or the same with our video.”

The lawyer also affirmed that it was in fact their intention to present the same in its entirety.

After receiving the answer, Cayetano then appealed to his fellow senator-judges to consider presenting the whole two hour clip during the same hearing in order to expedite the proceedings.

He asserted that doing so would allow all judges to have proper context when it came to how they viewed the utterances after the fact.

“Of course I don’t also feel like watching the two hour clip…but I’m just putting this at the feet of the presiding officer and my colleagues that if we’re going to do it eventually would we prefer to cut it now and we have something to think about and then later on the two hours,” the senator said.

However, Impeachment Presiding Officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero argued that the court could not dictate how the parties would present their arguments, particularly when it came to the presentation of evidence.

To better resolve the issue, Escudero would temporarily suspend the session to confer with his fellow senators.

In settling the issue, the former Senate President reiterated his stance, reiterating that the impeachment court was not in the position to dictate the proceedings.

Escudero further mentioned that it would allow the parties to present their evidence based on their perspective when it came to the allegations.

“Should the counsel for the respondent as it manifested to present the entire video, this court shall allow it during the time for the respondent to present its evidence in chief, we will not interfere with how each party or either party presents their case,” he said.

“With a caveat, a portion of an entire video being presented is not only to save on time but also to be able to support the allegations from the point of view of the prosecution in so far as their articles of impeachment are concerned,” he explained.

“No need to say that the counsel for the respondent will also present the evidence they deem best that will prove the innocence of the respondent in this case,” he added.

The contested video pertained to the verbal threats uttered by the Vice President where she stated that she had contacted an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Marcos, and former House speaker Martin Romualdez.

Notably, the video was also presented during the House Committee on Justice hearing last 14 May where the allegations concerning the same were discussed.