The prosecution’s presentation of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s alleged unexplained wealth under Article II is slated to be considerably longer and more extensive than the bribery charge under Article III. House lead prosecutor and Batangas Representative Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro confirmed that a larger pool of witnesses and documentary evidence had already been earmarked for the wealth case before the Senate impeachment trial commenced.
The comparison highlights the scale and complexity of the trial’s next phase following the prosecution’s decision to advance Article II ahead of Article III.
“I think it is shown in our pre-trial brief, mas mahaba ‘yung trial days na hiningi ng prosecution for unexplained wealth, compared to bribery,” Luistro said. “I am not very much certain as to the number, but I am almost sure na it was reflected at the onset in the pre-trial brief na mas maraming talaga ang testigo, and evidentiary documents to be presented in unexplained wealth.”
Article II accuses the Vice President of betrayal of public trust, alleging that she accumulated assets grossly disproportionate to her legitimate income and failed to fully disclose her financial interests in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). To substantiate the charges, prosecutors have assembled an extensive trail of financial and documentary records, including bank information and tax filings, to contrast against Duterte’s declared income.
Luistro dismissed notions that prioritizing unexplained wealth signals a difference in the strength of the charges.
“We would like to maintain what we expressed already, even before we started. These are four equally strong articles of impeachment,” Luistro explained, emphasizing that prosecutors retain the discretion under the pre-trial order to adjust the sequence based on witness availability and strategic trial considerations.
Because the pre-trial brief required both sides to outline intended witnesses, documentary exhibits, and estimated presentation schedules, prosecutors received an early assessment of the time each article would demand. The filing revealed a significantly heavier burden of proof for the wealth allegations, establishing Article II as the most extensive phase of the prosecution’s case.
“So let us focus on that because of the evidence necessary between unexplained wealth and bribery on one hand, we find it more prudent to advance unexplained wealth, and we will finish with bribery,” Luistro stressed.
The prosecution panel aims to conclude its presentation on Article I regarding confidential funds before transitioning to the unexplained wealth case, after which it plans to conclude its arguments with the bribery charge.