SIDEBAR

Atty. Ephraim Cortez

The prosecution gave Sara Duterte a favor when it withdrew Articles 1,  and 4, because withdrawal is tantamount to affirming her innocence on those charges. She was deemed innocent despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.

We must concede that the Prosecution may withdraw any of the Articles of Impeachment even after the respondent has filed an answer and evidence has been presented. The only condition is that the Impeachment Court must permit the withdrawal. The problem is that it affirmed her innocence. 

Sara Duterte enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence. For this reason, the prosecution must prove her guilt by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof remains with the prosecution throughout the proceedings, and Duterte has no obligation to present any evidence to the contrary. 

However, once the prosecution presents a prima facie case against her, the burden of evidence shifts to the respondent. The evaluation of the prosecution evidence to determine whether it proves a prima facie case occurs after the presentation of evidence ends. Only when a prima facie case is established is the respondent obliged to present evidence in her defense.

Notably,  at the time of the withdrawal of Articles 1 and 4, the Prosecution had yet to complete the presentation of its evidence on these articles through a formal offer of its Exhibits. Although the prosecution  was not able to complete and terminate the presentation of evidence in support of Articles 1 and 4 and to rest its case, it is beyond doubt that it made out a prima facie case against Duterte on Articles 1 and 4.

At this point, while the presumption of innocence is not overturned and the burden of proof is not shifted, had the Prosecution completed its presentation of evidence by formally offering its documentary exhibits, the burden of evidence should have shifted to Duterte, given the overwhelming evidence against her, and she should have been compelled to present evidence in support of her defense.

As a consequence of the withdrawal, the Prosecution could not terminate its presentation of evidence with respect to Articles 1 and 4. As such, the prosecution could not overcome the presumption of innocence or meet its burden of proof. The burden of evidence never shifted to the respondent. 

It follows, under the circumstances, that the respondent is deemed innocent, not because she is really innocent, but because of the withdrawal of Articles 1 and 4. 

In essence, the Prosecution has given the Vice-President a favor by absolving her of accountability for Articles 1 and 4 despite overwhelming evidence that she misappropriated confidential funds amounting to hundreds of millions of pesos and made a mockery of accounting and audit procedures.

Photo credit: VERAA Files

=====================

The opinion expressed in this post is the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers.