High-Stakes Cross-Examination Sparks Debate Over Witness Control in Duterte Impeachment Trial

By Len Transporte

MANILA, Philippines – A seemingly routine cross-examination in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte unexpectedly escalated into a heated legal debate, spotlighting fundamental disagreements between counsel regarding the permissible extent of controlling a witness’s testimony.

The contentious exchange unfolded between defense counsel Kristine Ferrer and House prosecution lawyer Lorna Kapunan, revolving around Ferrer’s insistence on eliciting a categorical “yes” or “no” response from a witness questioned about specific provisions within a joint circular.

The friction began when Ferrer posed a direct question to the witness: “…sinabi ho ba ‘yan sa JC na dapat may mahuli?” (…does the JC state that someone must be caught?). This query aimed to ascertain whether the circular explicitly mandated an apprehension as proof of a successful operation.

Instead of delivering the concise “yes” or “no” Ferrer sought, the witness began to elaborate, referencing a particular section of the circular. “Ang nakalagay po kasi sa JC under 4.8.5 is proof of success,” the witness replied, attempting to provide context rather than a simple affirmation or denial.

Ferrer immediately moved to interject, appealing to the presiding officer: “Hindi, sinabi—sorry ah, Your Honor, please…” Her attempt to curtail the response was met with swift objection from Kapunan, who vociferously advocated for the witness’s right to complete their statement. “Let the witness answer, Your Honor. Your Honor please… can the counsel be instructed not to stop the witness at mid-sentence, Your Honor?” Kapunan argued.

Ferrer, in turn, asserted her prerogative as the cross-examining counsel, arguing that she was entitled to a direct answer. She suggested that any further clarification or elaboration could be pursued by the prosecution during their redirect examination. “Your Honor please, can the witness be directed just answer with yes or no? The counsel has her time to ask clarificatory questions later during redirect, Your Honor,” Ferrer stated, emphasizing her position by adding, “I am on cross, Your Honor please.”

However, Kapunan vehemently pushed back against Ferrer’s interpretation, contending that being in the midst of cross-examination does not grant counsel unfettered authority to restrict a witness’s response. She highlighted that not all questions can be adequately answered with a simple “yes” or “no,” regardless of the stage of examination. “Not all questions can be answered by yes or no. Never mind if you are on cross. There are limits to cross-examination,” Kapunan firmly stated, drawing a clear boundary on the permissible scope of cross-examination tactics.

The disagreement then further intensified, shifting to a more fundamental procedural point: the admissibility of misleading questions during cross-examination. Kapunan unequivocally asserted, “Misleading, misleading questions are not allowed on cross.”

Ferrer promptly and directly contradicted this assertion, declaring, “They are allowed.” This stark disagreement underscores a significant divergence in their understanding of evidentiary rules and the strategic use of cross-examination in a high-profile trial. The exchange not only illuminated the immediate legal skirmish but also provided a rare glimpse into the often-unseen tactical battles that shape courtroom proceedings, particularly in cases of such national importance.

The presiding officer’s eventual ruling on these points will undoubtedly set a precedent for the remainder of the trial, influencing how evidence is presented and challenged, and ultimately, how the narrative of Vice President Duterte’s impeachment proceedings unfolds.