VP’s ‘kill threat’ shown at trial

MANILA, Philippines — With Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged grave threats on President Marcos the focus of her impeachment trial yesterday, prosecutors presented part of her November 2024 online press briefing showing her making the alleged threat.

Court presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero allowed the prosecution to present a recording of the online briefing, and rejected the defense team’s objections to having as witness National Bureau of Investigation senior agent John Mark Calilung, who had authenticated the video as part of the NBI’s investigation on the complaints against the Vice President for grave threats and inciting to sedition.

The allegation is contained in Article IV or “contracting for the assassination of the President, the First Lady and the former Speaker of the House, by making grave threats and by actively inciting sedition against the Republic.”

Calilung testified on the authenticity of the video livestreamed on the Facebook page of fugitive former presidential spokesman Harry Roque. The NBI, he said, had even asked Facebook to preserve it so it could be accessed at any time.

In the course of direct examination, prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan told the court that only the relevant portions of the two hour and 26 minute video conference would be presented, to the objection of defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa, who moved that the whole recording be played instead, citing Rule 132, Sec. 17 of the Rules of Evidence.

The rule provides that when a portion of a record is given as evidence by one party, the entirety of the same subject may be examined by the other party.

In response, Ligutan argued that it is within the prerogative of the prosecution to decide what, when, how or whether to present evidence. He said the relevant portion of the video covered only two minutes and 18 seconds.

Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano proposed to play the whole video right away if the defense would be playing it whole anyway during cross-examination or in its presentation of evidence, saying he’d “rather watch the whole thing to get it over with than allow the prosecution to pick out the portions that directly say what they want to prove.”

Cayetano said the video should be shown in full before watching short clips to prevent the judges from having “prejudgments” and for them to know the whole “context.”

“If I’m the only one who wants to see it as a whole, then I will submit to everyone else. But if everyone else is saying we will eventually watch the whole of it, we might as well get it over and see the context of the whole video,” he said.

‘In the interest of time’

After the senators discussed the matter during recess, Escudero ruled that the prosecution can present only the relevant parts of the video “in the interest of time” and that the Senate impeachment court “will not impose on the parties on how they will present the evidence.”

“Should the defense decide to present the entire video, we shall allow it during their time. Playing a portion of the video is not only to save on time but to support the allegations from the point-of-view of the prosecution. The counsel for the respondent will likewise present the evidence they will deem best to prove the innocence of the respondent,” Escudero said.

He said his ruling favoring the prosecution has the “caveat that a portion of an entire video be presented not only to save on time, but also to be able to support the allegations from the point of view of prosecution in so far as their Articles of Impeachment is concerned.” With this, the prosecution proceeded to play the video.

Calilung said that as a result of the NBI’s “open source investigation,” it was revealed that Duterte made similar statements during a press conference on Oct. 18, 2024.

In particular, Calilung said Duterte was shown expressing her desire to cut off the President’s head as well as exhume his father’s remains and throw them into the West Philippine Sea.

Before Calilung was presented as a witness, House of Representatives prosecutor Rep. Lorenz Defensor and Narvasa engaged in a heated debate over trial procedures, with the latter interrupting the prosecutor’s delivery of a manifestation.

“Your Honor, would I be allowed to finish my manifestation? I will not disrespect and interrupt the defense counsel once he has started,” Defensor said.

“This is no disrespect. Your Honor, this isn’t proper for trial. This is not a manifestation proper for court procedure. This is, instead, them telling a story. This is a narration by the prosecution, which is not allowed. This is not allowed by any rule in any court. So, what is proper is that they present their first witness,” Narvasa said in response.

Sinister

While Escudero allowed Defensor to continue with his manifestation, he pointed out that this should not be taken as “evidentiary.”

“What makes these threats especially sinister is that they do not come from an ordinary citizen, but from the Vice President herself, an official who, under the Constitution, stands to succeed the President of the Republic,” Defensor said.

“Such statements carry a gravity far from the exercise of one’s freedom of expression; they strike at the very heart of government,” he said.

In objecting to Calilung’s appearance as a prosecution witness, the defense argued that the NBI official was not listed as a witness in the complaint filed by Rev. Fr. Joel Saballa.

However, Ligutan argued that the Saballa complaint had “already lived its natural life” and that what is being tackled is the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives to the Senate. He also pointed out that Calilung is included in the prosecution’s pre-trial brief.

Also during the trial, Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked the House prosecution how the videos presented as evidence under Article IV could prove that the Vice President had actually hired someone to assassinate President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez.

“None of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one. Why are these acts impeachable?” Hontiveros asked.

Ligutan replied that the prosecution was not relying on a single statement but on a series of public remarks that, he said, showed Duterte’s intent.

“These are not isolated statements by the Vice President. They culminated in a series of statements in which she expressed her desire to have the President, the First Lady and the former Speaker killed,” Ligutan said.

Sen. Pia Cayetano, however, objected to both the questioning and the response, saying Hontiveros’ query effectively invited the prosecution to deliver a closing argument.

“When we allow this to happen, we are already shortcutting the process. I don’t want to see this happen again,” Cayetano said.

Hontiveros clarified that she was questioning the materiality of the prosecution’s evidence, not inviting a closing statement.

“My question had to do with how the evidence is material to the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment because it does not establish that the Vice President actually sought an assassin. My intention was not to provoke a closing statement,” she said. Escudero later granted the defense’s motion to strike Ligutan’s response from the record.

Meanwhile, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Charlie Mendoza confirmed the bureau’s receipt from the Senate of the box containing Duterte’s and her husband Manases Carpio’s tax records.

The return of the unopened box was supervised by Senate Secretary and impeachment court clerk Renato Bantug Jr. through the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, with police escorts transporting the records to the BIR central office in Quezon City.

Mendoza said the sealed box arrived at the agency at around 11:40 a.m. — Mark Ernest Villeza