House trial spokesperson Zia Alonto Adiong on Monday said the defense’s focus on alleged clerical errors and document discrepancies should not overshadow the central development in the impeachment trial: the sworn testimony that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), after evaluating the available evidence, found prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction as the basis for recommending the filing of three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition against Vice President Sara Duterte.
“Ang nakikita natin ngayon ay pagtatangkang ilipat ang usapan mula sa substance ng testimonya patungo sa technicalities ng ilang dokumento. Huwag tayong malihis (What we are seeing now is an attempt to change the conversation from the substance of the testimony to the technicalities of some documents. Let’s not deviate),” Adiong said in a press briefing.
“Ibalik natin ang usapan sa testimonya ng testigo, hindi sa encoding ng mga dokumento (Let’s return to the testimony of the witness, not to the encoding of the documents),” he said.
Adiong emphasized that the defense is fully entitled to question documents presented in court.
“But the public should also ask a simple question: Nagbago ba ang testimonya ng testigo? Ang sagot ay hindi (did the testimony of the witness change. The answer is no),” he said.
“Hindi nagbago ang isang salita sa testimonya ng testigo dahil lamang sa sinasabing typo o clerical error sa isang dokumento (The testimony of the witness did not change just because of the said typo or clerical error in a document),” he added, stressing that the testimony that matters remains exactly the same.
Adiong said government agencies should always strive for accuracy in preparing official records. However, he stressed that not every alleged discrepancy has the same legal significance.
He reminded the public not to confuse alleged clerical errors with the evidence itself.
“Paperwork should always be accurate. Ngunit ang paperwork ay hindi ang ebidensiya. Ang recordings, ang testimonya ng testigo, at ang findings na kanyang ipinaliwanag sa ilalim ng panunumpa ay magkakahiwalay na usapin at dapat suriin batay sa kanilang sariling bigat at halaga (But paperwork is not the evidence. The recordings, the testimony of the witness, and the findings that he explained under oath are different issues that should be examined based on their own weight and importance,” he said.
The impeachment proceedings, he said, should remain focused on the constitutional issues raised by the Articles of Impeachment rather than being sidetracked by matters that do not necessarily affect the substance of the evidence.
“Sa dulo, hindi typo ang huhusgahan ng Impeachment Court. Ang huhusgahan ay kung ano ang ipinakita ng ebidensiya at kung ano ang pinatunayan ng testimonya. Doon dapat manatili ang ating pansin (In the end, it’s not the typo that will be judged by the Impeachment Court. What will be decided will be on what evidence is shown and what the testimonies prove. The issue should remain there),” he said. (PNA)