VP Sara Duterte's defense skips lengthy cross-exam of former Landbank managers

Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team said it deliberately kept its cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to a minimum during the 10th day of the impeachment trial, arguing that the testimonies presented under Article I did not warrant extended questioning.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa, who handled Wednesday's cross-examination, said the camp saw no reason to challenge the testimony of former LandBank department manager Violeta Constantino, prompting the defense to waive its opportunity to question her after the prosecution finished its direct examination.

"There was nothing questionable or damaging in what the witness presented. The witness merely identified the checks, which is something we are not even disputing," Poa said during a press conference after the trial.

"So, I didn’t want to prolong the proceedings and, you know, be petty by asking questions when they weren’t even necessary," he added.

Constantino was the prosecution's first witness for Article I, which accuses Duterte of misusing, misappropriating and irregularly liquidating confidential funds. She testified that she supervised the encashment of four ₱125-million checks by former Office of the Vice President Special Disbursing Officer Gina Acosta.

The defense likewise kept its questioning of former LandBank DepEd branch manager Nenita Camposano brief, asking only two questions during cross-examination. Camposano had testified about the Department of Education's ₱37.5 million confidential fund encashment while Duterte was education secretary.

Poa also dismissed the significance of the witnesses' description of the cash withdrawals as "unusual," saying their observations were merely personal opinions and were not central to the issues being litigated.

"I don’t see how it will affect the case. It’s not even an issue here. We’re not questioning the validity of the encashment, are we?" Poa said.

"So I really thought it would have been petty to dwell on it. The only question I raised was to clarify why they exited through the fire exit," he further said, adding that he asked this question simply to remove any negative connotations about exiting the bank through the backdoor.