Defense lawyer Kristine Ferrer and prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan clashed Wednesday during a Senate impeachment court session in Manila over the use of a government document [1, 2].
The dispute centers on the rules of evidence in a high-stakes trial. If the court allows the defense to introduce its own copies of audit documents, it could shift the burden of proof or introduce evidence not vetted by the prosecution.
The confrontation occurred during the cross-examination of COA-ICFAO auditor Xylene Del Campo [1]. Ferrer attempted to use a copy of a Commission on Audit Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) to question the witness [1, 2].
Kapunan objected to the maneuver, arguing that only evidence produced by the prosecution should be admitted during this phase of the trial [1, 2]. The exchange became heated as the two lawyers debated the admissibility of the defense team's version of the AOM [1].
Following the session, Kapunan commented on the tension between the two legal teams. "I'm holding myself back from giving Ferrer a spanking," Kapunan said [2].
The incident highlights the friction within the Senate impeachment court as both sides fight for control over the narrative and the documents presented to the senators. The court must now determine whether the defense's copy of the audit memorandum meets the procedural requirements for admission [1].
“"I'm holding myself back from giving Ferrer a spanking."”
This clash reflects a fundamental legal struggle over the 'chain of custody' and the formal introduction of evidence in an impeachment proceeding. By challenging the defense's use of a separate copy of the AOM, the prosecution is attempting to prevent the defense from introducing potentially altered or unverified documents into the official record, which could impact the final verdict of the Senate court.
