Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan said in open court--although in jest--that she held herself back from "spanking" her much younger defense lawyer-counterpart, Kristine Ferrer, during the continuation of Vice President Sara Duterte's Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, Aug. 12.

It was the latest sound bite from Kapunan--a veteran litigator of almost 50 years--and it came during Ferrer's cross-examination of prosecution witness, Commission on Audit (COA) state auditor Xylene del Campo.

Things got heated between Kapunan and Ferrer after the latter insinuated during cross-examination that the tagging of activities described in Office of the Vice President (OVP) confidential funds reports as "intelligence" or "surveillance" established proper auditing of such funds.

Naturally, Kapunan disagreed with this assertion.

At one point, presiding officer Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero told both lawyers that they were members of the Bar and would be treated equally. He urged them not to let what he described as the "generational divide" increase tension in the courtroom.

“I am preventing myself from giving her a spanking, Your Honor,” Kapunan said, jokingly.

However, Escudero was still compelled to once again call for restraint. Kapunan responded to this by saying, “I promise to henceforth behave.”

The House prosecution had called Del Campo to the witness stand as part of its presentation of evidence for article I of the articles of impeachment against Duterte, covering the alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds.

On Wednesday, Ferrer showed Del Campo protective intelligence operations reports submitted with the OVP’s responses to audit observations by COA covering the first three quarters of 2023.

Ferrer quizzed Del Campo about listed activities such as coordination with police and military intelligence operatives, threat assessment, surveillance of venues, profiling of participants, and deployment of informants along the Vice President’s routes.

“Tingnan natin isa-isa kung ito ba talagang intelligence work o hindi,” Ferrer said before going through the entries.

(Let's check each one to make sure if they are part of intelligence work or not.)

Del Campo agreed that several activities described in the documents could fall under intelligence gathering, surveillance, or confidential work.

However, Kapunan objected, and reminded everyone that the impeachment article and the witness’s audit testimony concerned the OVP’s use of confidential funds.

“We are not talking about intelligence funds. We’re talking about confidential funds,” Kapunan said. “All the questions referred to intelligence funds, when the topic today is confidential funds.”

The prosecutor said the distinction was significant because the witness’s acknowledgment that an activity could be classified as "surveillance" did not resolve whether or not the particular payment was supported by the documents required for its reported purpose.

When asked why the expenses remained disallowed despite the protective intelligence reports (PIOR) and certifications submitted by the OVP, Del Campo maintained that the documents did not sufficiently demonstrate the success required for the questioned payments of rewards.

“Hindi po sufficient iyong PIOR and certification na evidence na nagpapakita ng success ng information gathering,” Del Campo testified.

(That PIOR and certification are not sufficient evidence to show the success of information gathering.)

The defense then asked Del Campo if a surveillance that prevented an incident from occurring could itself demonstrate that an operation succeeded. Kapunan objected again, and described the question as hypothetical.

Escudero allowed the inquiry to continue, as he noted that the reports themselves stated that no untoward incident had occurred.

Del Campo distinguished payments for information--which she said were not disallowed--from payments of rewards, which required proof of success.