00:00Earlier today, Your Honours, the prosecution served upon counsel for respondent a written request for admission and furnished a copy
00:07to this Honourable Court.
00:09The request is based on Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which simply provides that after the issues have
00:15been joined, a party may serve upon another party a written request for admission of the genuineness of material and
00:22relevant documents or of the truth of material and relevant matters of fact.
00:26The rule also provides, Your Honour, that matters covered by a request for admission shall be deemed admitted unless the
00:35respondent serves a sworn response within the allotted time period, either specifically denying the matters requested or setting forth in
00:43detail the reasons why they cannot truthfully either admit or deny them.
00:47Sa madaling salita, Your Honour, simple lang po ang hinihiling ng prosecution.
00:52Hinihiling po namin sa respondent na kumpirmahin, una, kung genuine o tunay ang mga bank records na isinumite ng mga
01:01banko alinsunod sa subpina do sestecom na inisyo ng impeachment court,
01:05at ikalawa, kung ang mga bank accounts na tinutukoy sa mga records na yun ay pag-aari ni Vice President
01:11Sarah Zimmerman Duterte individually or jointly with others.
01:16These are matters, Your Honour, which respondent is particularly well-positioned to know or can readily verify.
01:23As to whether the identified bank accounts belong to her, respondent necessarily possesses personal knowledge of that fact.
01:30As to the bank records pertaining to those accounts, respondent has immediate means of verifying their accuracy and genuineness through
01:39her own records or directly with the banks that produce them.
01:42We are not asking the respondent to admit matters that they do not know anything about, or rather that they
01:49have no access to.
01:50We are asking them simply to admit records that they can readily and easily verify, either through their own records
01:58or through confirmation with the banks and other institutions.
02:03I think it's very clear, Your Honour, under the rules and jurisprudence, where a party has immediate access to records,
02:10documents, or information by which the truth of a matter can readily be confirmed without undue difficulty,
02:16the unjustified refusal to admit readily verifiable facts or documents would defeat the very purpose of a request for admission,
02:25to narrow the issues and avoid unnecessary proof.
02:28Of course, we acknowledge that the defense has the duty to zealously represent their client, but under the Code of
02:35Professional Responsibility and Accountability,
02:38councils also have a duty to assist in the administration of justice.
02:43Council may and should specifically deny matters that are genuinely disputed, but if their purpose is only to delay the
02:51proceedings or to refuse out of sheer obstinancy,
02:55we submit that that would be unreasonable and inconsistent with the duty to assist in the administration of justice.
03:02One last point, Your Honour, may I just emphasize that a request for admission is different from the stipulations that
03:09we have experienced here in prior hearings.
03:14If Your Honour, please, the request for admission is not a stipulation.
03:20A stipulation is the product of an agreement between the parties and only becomes binding when the parties agree to
03:27stipulate.
03:28A request for admission, on the other hand, invokes a specific procedure under Rule 26,
03:33which does not depend on the parties first reaching an agreement.
03:38And we are invoking that procedure for one reason and one reason alone, to shorten this trial.
03:44If the respondents would admit matters that are subject of the request,
03:51we would be able to dispense with the presentation of at least 15 witnesses and shorten the trial very much
03:59in that manner.
04:00To be clear, hindi po namin hinihiling na aminin ang respondent ang isang bagay na hindi totoo.
04:07Hindi rin namin hinihiling na isuko niya ang kanyang depensa.
04:11Ang hinihiling lamang po namin ay simple.
04:13Kung totoo, aminin.
04:15Kung hindi totoo, tuwirang tanggihan.
04:17Kung hindi naman kayang aminin o itanggi ng tapat,
04:21sabihin sa ilalim ng panunong pa kung bakit.
04:23Pero kung walang tunay na dispute, hindi na po natin kailangan gumugul pa ng ilang linggo
04:29at magharap ng humigit kumulang labing libang testigo
04:32para patunayan ang hindi naman talaga pinagtatalunan.
04:37And that, Your Honors, is precisely the reason why we have filed this request for admission
04:41to narrow the issues, shorten the trial, and assist the court
04:44in the orderly and unimpeded search for the truth.
04:48Thank you, Your Honors.
04:49I'm sure you have a response, Attorney Paul.
04:51Actually, Your Honor, my response would be I would like to thank, of course,
04:55opposing counsel for not making any conclusions of law or fact in his quick statement.
05:01And our response would be, Your Honor, again, we will file the proper response
05:06as requested by the prosecution at the proper time.
05:10And again, we were asking because the request asked for seven days,
05:15if we could at least be given 15 days so that we could also consult
05:18and coordinate the matters with our client, Your Honor.
05:22Chair would like to take this opportunity, given that it's the two of you who are standing there,
05:28to actually state that, indeed, both gentlemen have held their own quite well
05:37the past few weeks since the impeachment trial began
05:40and have been very cordial, gentlemanly, careful in their remarks.
05:47And Chair would like, the presiding officer would like to commend both counsels from both sides,
05:52again, to take use, to make the most out of the opportunity where both of you are standing here.
05:57Attorney Jokno, I have a question, though.
06:00You're citing a rule of civil procedure, were you not?
06:03Rule 26?
06:04Yes, Your Honor.
06:05It is in unimplied admissions?
06:07That is on specifically request for admissions.
06:10Yes, Your Honor.
06:11Yes, I have a question.
06:16There is a Supreme Court ruling that it applies only to civil and not to criminal cases,
06:22again, given the sui generis nature of this case, of course.
06:25Particularly, I am referring to People v. Ang, a 2020 case, GR No. 231854,
06:32which states that such a rule might not apply to criminal proceedings
06:38given the right of an accused against self-incrimination.
06:42Can you comment briefly on that?
06:45Although the respondent did not raise that, can you comment briefly on that?
06:50And secondly, counsel, if we tie the hands of the respondent with your seven-day period
06:56instead of the 15-day period provided for by the rule you cited, Rule 26, Section 2, I believe.
07:04Yes.
07:06Then they will just come out with a specific denial for each of your 104 requests for admission.
07:13So giving them ample time to actually go over it might serve your purpose as well.
07:18Your comment, Attorney Jokno.
07:20First of all, if you're honest, please.
07:22I think it's very clear that this is not a criminal trial.
07:25This is an impeachment trial where the outcome will only determine
07:30whether the vice president can continue to serve as vice president
07:34and whether there will be any perpetual disqualification imposed on her.
07:39No imprisonment, no fine, no other element of criminal case is involved in this impeachment trial.
07:48So even if, for example, the defense will say that this cannot apply,
07:55our response is simply we should, this Honorable Impeachment Court has the inherent power to apply rules
08:03that will shorten and facilitate the trial of this case.
08:07If we can successfully navigate the request for admission, Your Honor, we would be able to save this court considerable
08:14time,
08:15at least 15 witnesses that we would have to present if there is no admissions made by the respondent.
08:22And second, if you're honest, please, the 15-day period, while that is provided in the rules of court for
08:30ordinary cases,
08:31given the nature of this proceeding, given the fact that the counsel for respondents have an entire team of lawyers
08:39assigned to this case,
08:41I believe that 15 days would be too long a period.
08:46However, we would be willing to submit to the discretion of the court as far as the period of time
08:51is concerned.
08:52We do believe, however, that this would be a mechanism that would enable us to reach the end of this
08:59trial much quicker
09:00without sacrificing due process or any of the interests of both sides.
09:06Attorney Boal?
09:07Your Honor, on the part of the defense, I do not question the intention of the Good Counsel to abbreviate
09:14the proceedings.
09:15In fact, the defense would like to do so as well.
09:17But at this point, Your Honor, we are constrained to reserve our comments and responses at the proper time, Your
09:25Honor.
09:25All we are asking for is, again, just to be given 15 days, Your Honor,
09:29as provided under the very section that was cited by the Distinguished Opposing Counsel, Your Honor, Rule 26, Section 2.
09:39Anything else, Attorney Jack?
09:41No, Marianne.
09:42Chair will make a ruling.
09:44Chair gives the respondent 15 days from today to file their comment on the 104 requests for admission under Rule
09:5426,
09:55knowing, Attorney Poa, the effect of a general denial, knowing as well that an unreasonable denial would be looked at
10:06by the court.
10:07With that understanding, Attorney Poa, Attorney Chokno, would that be okay?
10:12Yes, Your Honor.
10:13Your Honor, just on the ruling itself, Your Honor, we are not questioning the ruling,
10:18but perhaps we could also include the applicability of such requests, Your Honor, as you raised earlier.
10:25Yes, again, we will be looking at the comments you will be filing,
10:31and we will make sure that it will not violate the respondent's right against self-incrimination.
10:37Thank you, Your Honor.
10:41Thank you, Your Honor.
10:42Thank you, Your Honor.
10:45Thank you, Your Honor.
10:51You
