The House prosecution has dropped Vice President Sara Duterte’s chief of staff, Atty. Zuleika Lopez, and House Legislative Security Bureau Executive Director Capt. Belinda Bello from its witness list, saying their testimonies under Article IV would be unnecessary, redundant or merely corroborative.
The decision is expected to shorten the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and reduce the number of trial dates devoted to the article involving Duterte’s alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
On the fifth day of the impeachment trial, private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan said the panel reached the decision after reviewing the testimonial and documentary evidence presented through its first two witnesses, National Bureau of Investigation officials John Mark Calilung and Jeremy Lotoc.
The prosecution also considered the examinations conducted by both sides and the clarificatory questions raised by the senator-judges.
“It is the wisdom of the public prosecutors, as expressed through this representation, that we find it totally unnecessary, redundant and a surplusage to still present Atty. Zuleika Lopez and, as well, Capt. Belinda Bello,” Kapunan told the impeachment court.
Lopez was initially expected to testify on three matters related to Duterte’s Nov. 23, 2024 online press conference, which is central to Article IV.
“Had we been able to present Atty. Zuleika Lopez, she would have proven three things—or we would want to have proven three things,” Kapunan said.
The prosecution intended to establish through Lopez that she was inside the House detention center when Duterte made the statements captured in the recording marked as Exhibit P-4-10.
Lopez was also supposed to testify that members of the media were present and heard the Vice President’s remarks, and to authenticate the recording and establish its provenance.
Kapunan said Lopez was no longer needed for the first purpose after defense counsel Mark Vinluan acknowledged during the proceedings that the press conference occurred, that Duterte and Lopez were present and that the Vice President made the statements heard in the recording.
The defense, however, continued to dispute the prosecution’s interpretation of Duterte’s remarks.
Kapunan said further authentication was also unnecessary because the defense itself used portions of the same recording during the proceedings.
“Totally unnecessary because, why? Because the defense themselves used the very same video, that exhibit, in their defense when they showed Atty. Zuleika crying and allegedly complaining about the violation of her human rights,” Kapunan said.
“So by their own admission, there is no question about this video,” she added.
Bello, meanwhile, was expected to testify about the events preceding the online press conference, including an order to transfer Lopez within the House detention facility.
Kapunan said Bello’s testimony would merely support evidence already presented concerning the circumstances discussed by Duterte during the Nov. 23 broadcast.
“The testimony of Capt. Belinda Bello is merely corroborative. She would have been presented only to corroborate the fact that there was a transfer order made in the detention center and that transfer order had been the subject of the video or press conference of November 23, 2024,” Kapunan said.
The removal of Lopez and Bello leaves the prosecution with two fewer witnesses in its presentation under Article IV.