Subpoena unlike a search warrant is ‘non-invasive’ – Diokno
Text size
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
The issuance of a subpoena is a “non-invasive” means of seeking the production of documents contrary to the purpose of a search warrant, a House prosecutor explained.
The matter was raised during discussions on whether the Senate, acting in its capacity as an impeachment court, should grant the request of the prosecution for subpoena duces tecum on the tax records, bank information, and Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) reports on the accounts of Vice President Sara Duterte.
Directing a question to both parties in the trial, Senator Pia Cayetano asked if the precedent set under the landmark Supreme Court case of Stonehill vs Diokno was applicable in the current proceedings.
For context, the case that Cayetano referenced concerned a ruling of the high court to invalidate 42 search warrants, ruling that a judicial court order could not be general.
It also established the “exclusionary rule,” wherein evidence that was deemed as unlawfully gathered or produced to be inadmissible in court proceedings.
Though agreeing with the standard set by the case, House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno said that the ruling could not be applied to its request from the impeachment court given that their request was merely concerned with a subpoena.
Diokno noted that unlike search warrants, evidence that is gathered through the issuance of subpoenas is not automatically entered into evidence in a particular case.
The lawmaker further stressed that subpoenas were governed under a different ruling, particularly Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
“It’s governed by Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which basically provides that for a subpoena to be valid it must be relevant and it must be definite,” he explained.
“That means it is relevant as it relates to the facts that need to be proven, and regarding definiteness, it is clear exactly which documents are being requested,” he added.
Diokno mentioned that their request for the production of tax, bank, and AMLC records served the purpose of addressing the allegation when it came to the unexplained wealth contained in the joint accounts of the Vice President and her husband, Atty. Manases “Mans” Carpio.
He argued that the non-disclosure of the said documents would injure the case in so far as proving that Duterte did have unlawfully acquired funds.
Notably, on Monday, 20 July, the Senate impeachment court granted the requests of the prosecution.
Impeachment court presiding judge Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero ordered for the production of the requested documents by 30 July, noting that the same would be subject to the examination of the court before being handed over to the prosecution and the defense for marking.
