"Those matters remain subject to proof, objection, and the court's independent evaluation of their admissibility and evidentiary weight at the proper time."
The prosecution had sought judicial notice of records arising from House investigations into Duterte's handling of confidential funds, which eventually formed the basis of Article I of the impeachment complaint.
Escudero cited Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, which allows courts to take judicial notice of official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. But he stressed that the doctrine does not relieve prosecutors of the burden of presenting evidence to prove their allegations.
"It is not a substitute for the presentation and formal offer of competent evidence, nor does it dispense with the applicable rules on authentication, hearsay, relevance, and the right of the respondent to object and confront the evidence presented against her," Escudero said.
Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer earlier argued that the House records contain disputed allegations that cannot be accepted without witness testimony and cross-examination.
Ferrer told senator-judges that while the House hearings were public proceedings, the accusations contained in transcripts, video recordings and committee reports remained contested.
"These are accusations of misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of confidential funds which must be proven by the prosecution through presentation of evidence," she said.
Lascañas affidavit remains hearsay
In a separate ruling, Escudero denied the defense's objection to the transfer of exhibit markings involving portions of a purported affidavit attributed to self-confessed Davao Death Squad (DDS) member Arturo Lascañas.
The document became a point of contention during the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag, who cited it as among the materials reviewed by an NBI special task force investigating allegations linking Duterte to extrajudicial killings in Davao City.
During the impeachment proceedings, prosecutors sought to transfer the markings of portions of the document from provisional copies to original or certified true copies, a move opposed by the defense.
But Ferrer argued that the document remained unverified and that the defense should be allowed to challenge its authenticity and contents before it could be given any evidentiary weight.
Escudero, however, ruled that the transfer of markings from provisional copies to original or certified true copies was merely a "mechanical and ministerial act" intended to maintain the orderly identification of court records and did not amount to a finding on the document's authenticity, admissibility or evidentiary value.
He reiterated an earlier ruling made during Matibag's testimony that the affidavit could be considered only for the limited purpose of showing that it came to the attention of investigators and formed part of the NBI's investigation.
The presiding officer further ruled that witnesses would not be permitted to read into the record statements made by third parties for the purpose of proving their truth, citing Duterte's right to confront and challenge evidence presented against her.
"A witness will not hereafter be allowed to read in open court a third-party statement that is not his or her own," Escudero said.
Escudero said the limitation applied to the Lascañas affidavit and similar documents offered only to show that investigators considered them during an inquiry.
"The purported affidavit remains unsigned, unauthenticated, and not made under oath, with no witness having attested to its execution and truth of its contents," he said.
SC dismisses House challenge
Hours later, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by Duterte and her allies challenging the constitutionality of the House proceedings that led to her impeachment.
In a press briefer issued after its en banc session on Wednesday, the high court said the petitions filed by Duterte and lawyer Israelito Torreon had become moot after the House completed its constitutional role by approving and transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
"The House's transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment marked the end of the House's role in the impeachment process and the initiation of the impeachment case," the court said.
The petitions sought to stop proceedings before the House Committee on Justice, arguing that lawmakers exceeded their constitutional authority by gathering evidence, compelling witnesses to appear, and conducting what the petitioners described as trial-like proceedings while determining whether the impeachment complaints were sufficient in form, substance and grounds.
Duterte and the other petitioners argued that the House committee effectively conducted a "mini-trial" before the Articles of Impeachment were transmitted to the Senate, which they maintained is the sole body constitutionally empowered to try impeachment cases.
The tribunal added that the Senate had already convened as an impeachment court and begun trial proceedings, rendering any challenge to the House process academic.
"Any ruling on the validity of the actions taken by the House and its Committee on Justice would no longer affect the controversy," it said.
