‘I’m looking at the summaries now. There are specific columns for Vice President Sara Duterte, there are separate columns for company totals. It’s clear we will be able to separate the information on VP Sara and on her husband, Atty. Manases R. Carpio.’
Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense on Monday questioned the prosecution’s presentation of an SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) summary of her alleged shareholdings, warning that the labeling of corporate figures could “condition the mind of the public” during her impeachment trial.
Defense lawyer Justin Nicol Gular objected to a summary prepared by SEC witness Gerardo del Rosario, saying the defense had received the document only during Monday’s proceedings and that a quick review raised questions about how the figures were presented.
“Before the flashing of these... a quick perusal of the documents already showed some misrepresentation. For example, the summary is labeled Summary of Vice President Sara Duterte’s Shareholding. But it then appears in the summary: authorized capital stock, amount subscribed, amount paid up by the corporations, not by the Vice President,” Gular told the impeachment court.
“This is again an attempt, and apologies for using the term, to condition the mind of the public over these figures that will be flashed,” he said.
The prosecution sought to use the summary to shorten Del Rosario’s testimony, which involved hundreds of corporate documents. Prosecutor Erwin Matib said the Rules of Court allow summaries, which the impeachment court has used to expedite proceedings.
“I’m looking at the summaries now. There are specific columns for Vice President Sara Duterte, there are separate columns for company totals. It’s clear we will be able to separate the information on VP Sara and on her husband, Atty. Manases R. Carpio,” prosecution lawyer Erwin Matib said in English and Filipino.
“So the summary is not misleading. In fact, if there are companies where she is not named it clearly says ‘VP Sara does not appear as an incorporator or director,’” Matib added.
Gular, however, maintained that the figures needed to be properly distinguished between Duterte’s reported ownership and the corporations’ financial information. He later voiced the same concern over the audited financial statements submitted by the prosecution.
Presiding Officer Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero then ruled in favor of the prosecution, ‘“If it so shows, then the court will allow it.”
‘Futile and meaningless’
House prosecutor Terry Ridon later asked the Senate impeachment court to expunge two statements made by the defense when it objected to the prosecution’s presentation of an SEC summary of Duterte’s corporate interests.
The statements were: “a quick perusal of the document already shows some misrepresentation” and “clearly this is again an attempt to condition the minds of the public over these figures.”
Ridon argued that the statements should not form part of the proceedings, particularly because the document under discussion was an actual submission to the impeachment court. He also asked the court to remove what he described as a misleading heading on the document.
Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison opposed the request, calling it “futile and meaningless.”
“If truly the intention of the prosecution is just to present the documents and the data and information containing those documents, then the simple solution to their problem would have been to just simply refer to the certified true copies of the documents brought today by the witness,” she said.
