Evidentiary prep and trial tactics face heightened scrutiny as defense efforts to secure expert testimony collapse, shifting attention back to strict financial documentation and witness vetting protocols in ongoing impeachment proceedings.
House lead prosecutor and Batangas Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro has praised and commended former law dean Ralph Sarmiento’s decision to decline as a defense witness in Vice President Sara Z. Duterte’s impeachment trial.
Luistro even questioned whether defense lawyers had checked his willingness before seeking his appearance.
In a television interview Luistro said she appreciated Sarmiento’s explanation for keeping his constitutional law views independent.
“Sobrang napahanga ako,” Luistro said.
Sarmiento, a former University of St. La Salle College of Law dean, had been expected to open the defense presentation when the trial resumes November 9.
The defense wanted him to discuss constitutional and legal questions tied to Article II, the unexplained wealth.
“I’m quite surprised na it seems that the defense did not reach out to him prior to filing the motion for issuance of subpoena to this witness,” Luistro also said.
Luistro also said knowing a prospective witness’ position and willingness to testify was part of preparing a presentation.
In his recorded statement played during the interview, Sarmiento said he would not testify for either side because he wanted to preserve his independence as a constitutional law professor and legal analyst.
Sarmiento also asked the defense to withdraw its subpoena request or seek its recall if one had already been issued.
“He wants to maintain his independence and impartiality in sharing his opinions,” Luistro also said.
The discussion also turned to the possibility of Duterte taking the witness stand.
Luistro also said such an appearance would benefit the prosecution, citing both her assessment of Duterte’s manner of speaking and the financial records already presented.
“To be very honest, kung a-appear si Respondent Vice President, it will be to the advantage of the prosecution,” Luistro also said.
Luistro criticized Duterte’s speaking style: “Sometimes she loses control of what she says.”
Luistro also pointed to the records supporting Article II’s allegations of unexplained wealth, inaccurate asset declarations and prohibited business interests.
“The evidence on unexplained wealth is document-based,” Luistro also said.
Luistro also cited forensic accounting expert Alexander Cabrera’s explanation of the financial records and the connections the prosecution sought to establish through them.
“We have a forensic analyst who was able to explain clearly and strongly the connection of the pieces of evidence,” Luistro also said.
Cabrera’s report, covering 2022 to 2025, estimated P817.87 million in allegedly undeclared assets and unexplained wealth involving Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
Luistro also said the defense would have to address records filed by the couple and their associated companies, including audited financial statements and Income Tax Returns (ITRs).
Luistro also questioned how witnesses would rebut those documents and the prosecution’s analysis.
Referring to income tax returns, Luistro also said: “Yung ITR, it was the respondent’s own declaration of income as well as that of the spouse and their companies.”