No "fruit of the poisonous tree"

The defense team of VP Sara Duterte, aided by the Cayetano siblings, objected to the issuance of a subpoena for the production of bank records and income tax returns and SALN of the vice president allegedly because they could be deemed fruits of the poisonous tree. The defense and the pro-defense senators used the case of Stonehill vs Diokno. Irrelevant, your Honor. The Impeachment Court overruled them. The subpoenas were issued.

This doctrine in remedial or procedural law started in the US in a 1963 landmark American case entitled Wong Sun vs US, 371 US 471,488. It is a rule that postulates that illegally obtained evidence should not be admissible in court. This is related to the case of Miranda vs Nevada where it was held that any confession obtained from a suspect or an accused who was not assisted by counsel cannot be admitted as evidence in a criminal court. Up front, the Sara defenders should be reminded that this doctrine may not be applicable in impeachment proceedings.

Section 2 of Article III, the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

That is followed by Section 3. "(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding" This is called an exclusionary rule aimed at protecting the rights of an accused. However, the evidence in the vice president's impeachment is not a violation of these provisions because they were not illegally obtained. NBI officials and Finance officials testified based on official documents.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." These provisions are not applicable in the impeachment of the vice president because she is more than sufficiently defended by a platoon of legal luminaries and experienced trial lawyers.

Neither are the following applicable in the vice president's impeachment because there is no violation of her rights. "(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him." If the exclusionary rule does not apply to the bank statements and the AMLAC records showing movement of billions to and from the conjugal accounts of the Duterte-Carpio couple.

It is becoming clear that the defense team does not have any solid, independently admissible and relevant evidence to substantiate the so-called defenses of the vice president. It is poised to use any and all forms of technicality, dilatory tactics and all procedural inanities so as to derail, impede and postpone judgment by the impeachment court. The whole process will either diminish the vice president's popularity ratings in the polls and surveys or generate massive sympathy support for VP Sara. The ultimate result can go either way depending upon the directions of public opinion.

The impeachment court should set aside the desperate musings of the defense and allow the whole truth to be opened. If the vice president has nothing to hide why hide under the poisonous tree?