By Atty. Roland Collado
Cagayan de Oro City- It is a time-honored principle in this jurisdiction that “he who alleges must prove.” In an impeachment trial, this burden of proof rests entirely on the House prosecutors; the defense bears no legal obligation to prove innocence.
As the trial entered its tenth day on July 29, 2026, and the Senate Impeachment Court shifted its focus to Article I—the alleged systematic misappropriation of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds—the Vice President’s camp gained significant legal and tactical advantages.
The first and most significant legal and tactical advantage for the defense on Day 10 was purely procedural, yet strategically massive.
The House prosecution panel had aggressively petitioned the court to alter the sequence of the trial, pushing for an “alternate presentation of evidence per article.” The prosecution argued this would make the trial more orderly. However, the defense recognized it as an attempt to constantly shift the narrative spotlight, fragmenting the defense’s ability to build momentum.
By formally withholding their consent, the Vice President’s legal team successfully neutralized this maneuver. Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ruled that without mutual agreement, the trial must follow established precedent—specifically drawing from the 2012 trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Consequently, the prosecution must exhaustively present its entire case-in-chief for all articles before the defense is required to present its side.
This guarantees the defense a compounding structural benefit. They will see the prosecution’s entire hand, fully laid out and cross-examined, allowing them to systematically dismantle a fatigued prosecution team when it is finally their turn to step up to the plate.
Second, the prosecution’s own witnesses provided testimonies that significantly benefited the defense. To establish a case of fund misuse, the prosecution called retired Land Bank of the Philippines branch managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano. Both witnesses testified regarding the substantial cash encashments executed by special disbursing officers under the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
While both witnesses testified that these substantial cash transactions were unusual by normal banking standards, they also provided testimony that supports the defense. Specifically, they clarified that the encashments were not deemed suspicious and strictly adhered to established reporting regulations for large-volume transactions.
In a court of law, criminality cannot be predicated on what is merely “unusual.” Government agencies handling confidential, national-security-related allocations naturally operate outside everyday administrative bounds.
By anchoring their case on banking witnesses who openly declared that the transactions lacked the hallmarks of suspicious activity, the prosecution hollowed out its own narrative. Ultimately, this misstep significantly lowered the legal pressure on the defense, falling critically short of proving the strict intent required for malversation or graft.
Furthermore, the defense’s position was strengthened by the court’s strict adherence to procedural rules. When House prosecutor Leila de Lima attempted to deliver an expansive opening speech regarding the confidential funds, Defense counsel Michael Poa, objected arguing that her statements contained premature conclusions of fact and law.
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero sustained the defense’s objection, ruling in substance that opening statements must avoid legal conclusions and that the facts must be established through witnesses and documents rather than long narrative speeches by counsel.
This tight judicial leash prevents the trial from devolving into a pure public relations circus. By forcing the prosecution to anchor every claim in hard evidentiary links—rather than sweeping opening statements—the court plays directly into the strengths of a disciplined defense team that excels at tight cross-examinations and technical objections.
Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism, not an unbridled political weapon. While the prosecution continues to flood the court with documents, subpoenas, and testimonies, VP Sara’s defense team is winning the battle of attrition.
By keeping the trial sequence rigid, forcing the prosecution to present all articles first, and capitalizing on the evidentiary gaps of its witnesses, the Vice President’s camp has effectively fortified its position.
The burden of proof remains high. Day 10 proceedings demonstrated the challenges the prosecution faces in establishing its case than initially anticipated. Concurrently, the defense maintains its position as it seeks to influence the outcome of the impeachment trial.
###
