By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — Prosecutors intensified their impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday after presenting a senior National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) official who testified before the Senate impeachment court that the Vice President’s controversial remarks against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez constituted credible criminal threats rather than emotional or political statements.
Taking the witness stand during the fourth day of trial proceedings, NBI Bangsamoro Regional Director Atty. Jeremy Lotoc, who previously headed the bureau’s Cybercrime Division and supervised the investigation, told senator-judges that the agency carefully examined Duterte’s public statements and determined they satisfied the legal elements of criminal offenses.
Lotoc served as the prosecution’s second witness in support of Article IV of the impeachment complaint, which centers on allegations that Duterte publicly threatened the lives of the President, the First Lady, and Romualdez during separate online media briefings in October and November 2024.
According to the NBI official, investigators went beyond the literal language used by Duterte and evaluated the circumstances surrounding the statements, including her demeanor, intent, and the political environment at the time.
He explained that the investigation sought to determine whether the Vice President merely expressed frustration or had made declarations that should reasonably be treated as authentic threats.
After completing its assessment, the bureau concluded that the statements were neither casual remarks nor emotional exaggerations but serious declarations that warranted criminal investigation.
Lotoc said investigators likewise reviewed Duterte’s Oct. 18, 2024 livestream, during which she spoke about imagining the President being beheaded, as well as her Nov. 23, 2024 online press conference where she allegedly disclosed that instructions had already been given to kill President Marcos, the First Lady, and Romualdez if harm befell her.
When asked by prosecutors to clarify whose head Duterte referred to during the October livestream, Lotoc identified it as that of President Marcos.
The NBI also considered the responses of other government agencies after Duterte’s November statements.
Lotoc noted that the Presidential Communications Office publicly characterized the remarks as an active threat, while the Philippine National Police initiated heightened security measures after interpreting the statements as posing a potential danger to the President.
Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan challenged portions of the testimony, objecting to references suggesting the existence of an assassin and arguing that Duterte herself never used that specific term during her public remarks.
The prosecution countered that the characterization originated from government agencies responding to the incident and not from Duterte’s own words.
Lotoc further testified that investigators subpoenaed journalists who attended Duterte’s online press briefing to verify the context in which the statements were delivered.
Although the Vice President appeared visibly angry during the event, the witness said her emotional state did not diminish the seriousness of her declarations.
He told the impeachment court that the statements reflected persistence and determination, making them capable of encouraging others to commit unlawful acts.
Rejecting the defense’s argument that Duterte’s remarks were protected by constitutional free speech guarantees, Lotoc maintained that freedom of expression does not shield statements that satisfy the elements of criminal offenses.
He warned that treating such declarations as protected political speech could undermine public order by encouraging similar threats against public officials.
Based on the bureau’s findings, Lotoc said Duterte’s statements constituted grave threats and likewise contained elements of inciting to sedition, considering their potential to provoke hostility against the government and disrupt peace and order.
During cross-examination, Vinluan questioned whether the NBI had verified the existence of the alleged individual Duterte claimed to have instructed to carry out the killings.
Lotoc acknowledged that investigators have yet to identify any supposed hitman or uncover evidence of an actual assassination plot.
However, he emphasized that the investigation focused primarily on Duterte’s own public pronouncements, the circumstances under which they were made, and their possible consequences, rather than on proving the existence of a specific individual.
Senator-judge Bam Aquino likewise asked why investigators had not yet identified the alleged hired killer despite the gravity of the accusations.
Lotoc replied that the investigation remains active and that authorities continue to pursue leads, but stressed that the absence of an identified suspect does not diminish the criminal implications of Duterte’s public statements.
The defense attempted to portray the Vice President’s remarks as political rhetoric delivered amid an escalating conflict with the Marcos administration.
Lotoc disagreed, explaining that investigators distinguished protected political criticism from statements that crossed into criminal conduct after examining their content, surrounding circumstances, apparent intent, and potential capability to be carried out.
Meanwhile, the defense disclosed that it intends to present witnesses regarding its claim of “Operation Romanov,” an alleged assassination plot against Duterte and members of her family, which it argues prompted the Vice President’s controversial remarks.
Vinluan declined to identify the defense’s prospective witnesses but confirmed that evidence supporting the alleged plot will form part of the defense’s presentation as the impeachment trial continues.
ia/xf
