There was something almost painfully ironic about Wednesday’s impeachment hearing. The prosecution finally got its much-anticipated hostile witness: Atty. Michael Poa, former DepEd undersecretary and chief of staff, now a member of Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team.

And who got the job of questioning him? Atty. Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr. On paper, it looked like a prosecutor finally getting his hands on a key witness who had been on the other side of the courtroom.

In practice, it sometimes looked like a lawyer trying to cross-examine another lawyer who had been given permission to argue back. Poa was declared a hostile witness by Senate presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero, precisely because of his current role in Duterte’s defense.

He is also a central figure in the controversy surrounding the P112.5 million in DepEd confidential funds. But as Escudero had bluntly warned earlier in the trial, this is what you get when you put a brilliant lawyer on the witness stand.

Poa knows the language. He knows the rules. He knows the difference between an allegation, an audit observation, a finding and a conclusion. And most importantly, he knows how to answer a question without necessarily giving the answer the questioner wants.

That appeared to be the central problem for Tolosa. Again and again, the questioning seemed to struggle to pin Poa down on the precise role he played in the disbursement and liquidation of DepEd’s confidential funds. This was not a witness who could simply be led down a convenient narrative. This was a lawyer who understood exactly where the question was going—and was determined to get there first.

And that makes for fascinating courtroom television, but it also raises a serious question for the prosecution—did they really need Poa as a hostile witness, or did they inadvertently put one of their most formidable legal opponents in the witness chair?

The prosecution’s case is not trivial. It has pointed to Poa’s involvement in responding to Commission on Audit findings, including his role in obtaining military certifications used in connection with DepEd’s confidential-fund liquidation. So Poa is undeniably relevant.

But relevance is one thing. Extracting damaging testimony from a highly trained lawyer is another. And this is where Escudero’s observation becomes almost prophetic. You don’t merely question a lawyer. You litigate with him.

The danger is that every question becomes an invitation for the witness to explain, qualify, contextualize and—worst of all for the prosecutor—turn the question back on the prosecution. Tolosa may have had the witness he wanted. But Poa had something the prosecution could not take away:his legal brain.

And watching the exchange, one could almost hear the courtroom saying what Escudero had already warned them about:You wanted a hostile witness. You got a lawyer. And apparently, the lawyer came prepared.