FACT CHECK: Spliced video misrepresents Chel Diokno statement on VP Sara’s financial records

The video circulating online was spliced to make it seem like Diokno was 'admitting' that the House prosecution intended to fish for evidence against Vice President Sara Duterte Claim: During Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, Akbayan Representative and public prosecutor Chel Diokno said this about the prosecution’s request to subpoena Duterte’s financial records: “Nagbabakasakali lang — baka may makuha tayo dito (Just taking a chance — we might get something out of this).” Rating: ALTERED VIDEO Why we fact-checked this: Several videos containing the claim have been circulating on Facebook, with the most popular one gaining 2,200 shares and 1,200 comments. It opens with Diokno saying, “Nagbabakasakali lang — baka may makuha tayo dito (We’re just taking a chance — we might get something out of this.).” It then shows senator-judge Alan Peter Cayetano questioning Diokno about the prosecution’s requests to subpoena Duterte’s bank and tax records. Text overlaid on the video reads, “So wala silang ebidensya pero nag aakusa na. Nagbabakasakali lang pero tinatanggi pa.” (So they have no evidence but are already making accusations. They’re just taking a shot in the dark but they’re still denying it.) The same video was also reposted on senator-judge Pia Cayetano’s Facebook page. The facts: During the July 20 impeachment trial proceedings, Diokno was explaining how the prosecution’s subpoena requests for the Vice President’s financial records were different from an actual fishing expedition. Key parts of his original statement were edited out in the spliced video circulating online to make it seem like Diokno said the House prosecution is intending to fish for evidence. The full statement as recorded in the Senate’s journal records shows Diokno saying: “And iyong tinutukoy po ninyong fishing expedition, iyon ay maaaring sabihin nating nangyari only if the party requesting the evidence or documents ay nagbabakasakali lang — baka may makuha tayo dito. In our case, I have to disagree that there was any sort of fishing expedition because based on what the Committee on Justice and later the plenary of the House found was sufficient, there was enough cause to proceed with the case.” (What you are referring to as a ‘fishing expedition’ could be said to have occurred only if the party requesting the evidence or documents was merely taking a shot in the dark — hoping they might find something there.) The same statement can be found in the Senate’s livestream of the impeachment trial proceedings. Diokno called out the spliced video in a July 25 Facebook post. He posted a screenshot of Senator Pia Cayetano’s version of the video and clarified: “Hindi tayo nagbabakasakali lang. May probable cause o sapat na dahilan na nakita sa mga record ng Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) tungkol sa bilyun-bilyong dumaan sa accounts ng VP at kanyang asawa.” (We are not merely taking a chance. We have probable cause or sufficient grounds that can be found in the records of the Anti-Money Laundering Council regarding the billions of pesos that passed through the accounts of the Vice President and her spouse.) Reposted: Representatives of the House prosecution called out Cayetano’s posting of the spliced video. Prosecution spokesperson Jay Tolosa said it was “alarming” as it could create the impression that members of the impeachment court, who are supposed to be impartial, have already prejudged Duterte’s impeachment case. Other public prosecutors like Jinky Luistro and Leila de Lima also called out the misleading clip. ‘Fishing expedition’ claims: Claims that the prosecution’s case is a so-called “fishing expedition” has been a controversial point in the Vice President’s impeachment trial that the defense has repeatedly brought up. (READ MORE: Trial Day 6: Duterte insists disclosure of financial records violates her rights, laws) A fishing expedition is defined as the act of overly investigating or demanding information, where a party demands too much information based on hunches and accusations. The prosecution has repeatedly denied the claim that their subpoena requests amount to a fishing expedition. The Senate later granted the subpoena requests, with a few reservations, saying the documents requested by the prosecution were “reasonably described, readily identifiable, and prima facie relevant” to the issue. Debunked: Rappler has fact-checked other false claims about Duterte’s impeachment trial: FACT CHECK: No nationwide class suspension declared for Marcos’ 5th SONA FACT CHECK: NBI agent Calilung not arrested after VP Sara trial testimony FACT CHECK: No clash between De Lima, VP Sara at impeachment trial; video is AI-generated FACT CHECK: Video of VP Sara arguing with Escudero over impeachment is AI-generated FACT CHECK: No SC order junking current impeachment proceedings vs VP Sara – Shay Du/Rappler.com Keep us aware of suspicious Facebook pages, groups, accounts, websites, articles, or photos in your network by contacting us at factcheck@rappler.com. You may also report dubious claims to the #FactsFirstPH tipline by messaging Rappler on Facebook or Newsbreak via Twitter direct message. Let us battle disinformation one Fact Check at a time. How does this make you feel? Loading