The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday granted the prosecution’s request to take judicial notice of the House of Representatives hearings that led to the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, but ruled that the proceedings cannot be treated as proof of the allegations against her.

Presiding officer Senator Francis Escudero said the court would recognize only the existence and official character of the hearings conducted by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability and the Committee on Justice, along with the transcripts, audiovisual recordings and committee reports.

“The court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any statement made during the hearings, the correctness of any factual allegation, or the validity of any finding or conclusion in the committee report,” Escudero said.

He said the prosecutors must still formally present competent evidence to support their allegations and comply with rules on authentication, hearsay, relevance, and the respondent’s right to challenge the evidence.

The prosecution sought judicial notice of records from House investigations into Duterte’s handling of confidential funds, which form the basis of Article I of the impeachment complaint.

Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer argued that the House records contained disputed allegations that cannot be accepted without witness testimony and cross-examination.

“These are accusations of misuse, misappropriation, and irregular liquidation of confidential funds which must be proven by the prosecution through the presentation of evidence,” Ferrer said.

Lascañas affidavit

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 member Arturo Lascañas.

The affidavit surfaced during the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation director Melvin Matibag, who identified it as among the documents reviewed by an NBI task force investigating allegations linking Vice President Duterte to extrajudicial killings in Davao City.

Escudero ruled that transferring exhibit markings from provisional copies to original or certified true copies was merely a procedural step and did not constitute a finding on the document’s authenticity, admissibility, or evidentiary value.

He reiterated that the affidavit may only be considered to show that it formed part of the NBI’s investigation and not as proof of the truth of its contents.

“The purported affidavit remains unsigned, unauthenticated, and not made under oath, with no witness having attested to its execution and truth of its contents,” Escudero said.

He also barred witnesses from reading third-party statements into the record to prove their truth, citing Duterte’s constitutional right to confront evidence presented against her.

Supreme Court ruling

Hours later, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by Duterte and her allies questioning the constitutionality of the House proceedings that resulted in her impeachment.

In a press briefer issued after its en banc session, the Court said the petitions 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 petitioners had argued that the House Committee on Justice had exceeded its authority by conducting what they described as a “mini-trial” before transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.