Over 1,800 docs for marking for VP Duterte’s wealth scrutiny

House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno —INQUIRER file photo by Niño Jesus Orbeta MANILA, Philippines — More than 1,800 documents, including bank and insurance records produced under court-issued subpoenas, are set for marking as prosecutors prepare to present the unexplained-wealth article in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Rep. Chel Diokno, lead prosecutor for the second impeachment article, told the court on Tuesday. The marking of the documents has been set by the Senate impeachment court for Wednesday and Thursday, Sept. 9 and 10, during which the trial proceedings will be suspended so that both the prosecution and the defense can be there. The proceedings will resume on Monday, Sept. 14. Article continues after this advertisement Diokno asked the court for time to mark the documents and identified the financial records involved in the preparations for the next article against Duterte. “I am referring, Your Honor, to the bank records and other insurance records,” he said. READ: Impeach court to tackle VP’s alleged unexplained wealth on Sept. 14 Defense seeks more time to study documents Because of the volume of documents, the prosecution asked for more than a single marking session. At first, Diokno initially sought the whole of Wednesday and raised the possibility of extending the activity to Thursday and Friday. Presiding Officer Francis Escudero set aside Wednesday and Thursday for marking, with both sessions beginning at 10 a.m. Friday, he noted, could be used for budget proceedings as the Senate manages its legislative work alongside the impeachment trial. Article continues after this advertisement The defense agreed to the arrangement. Defense counsel Michael Poa raised a concern, however, about whether there would be enough time to study the large volume of material before Monday. Though acknowledging the prosecution’s prerogative to determine the sequence of its presentation, Poa requested at least two weeks to prepare and offered to give up the equivalent days from the defense’s own presentation to offset the requested period. Article continues after this advertisement Escudero kept the Monday hearing date, explaining that the court would have limited time available because of budget deliberations. He proposed allowing the defense the flexibility to choose when it would cross-examine prosecution witnesses, potentially permitting the next witness’s direct testimony to proceed first. The records preparation also coincided with the prosecution’s filing of a 104-item request for admission as evidence. Escudero confirmed the number of items with Diokno, while Poa said the defense had received the document that morning and had only briefly reviewed it. “We will have to study it, Your Honor, because we really did not have time to really peruse through the document,” Poa said. The defense’s comment concerned the length of the response period rather than the substance of the requests. Poa asked the court to allow at least 15 days, citing Rule 26, Section 2 of the Rules of Court — not the prosecution’s proposed seven days. READ: Duterte trial: Prosecution to tackle wealth case before bribery Escudero said the court would rule on that period at the appropriate time. No substantive defense response to the 104 items was given in the exchange, and the court proceeded to arrange the next witnesses without waiting for those requested admissions. Diokno said the prosecution would submit its subpoena requests and notices identifying the witnesses for the following week within the day or by the next morning. Escudero directed him to provide the witness information by the following day, together with any proposed stipulations. The court reiterated the five-day witness-notice agreement reached during the pretrial. That instruction set the timetable for the parties to prepare for the second impeachment article presentation while the records were being organized for marking. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. Your subscription has been successful. “That would be fine for the prosecution for the marking, Your Honor,” Diokno said when the court proposed the 10 a.m. sessions. /atm