Cross-examination shifts focus from public statements to proof of actual assassination plot
By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte took another dramatic turn as the defense extracted a significant admission from an NBI investigator, who acknowledged before the impeachment court that he had no personal knowledge that the Vice President actually contracted a person to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
The admission came during an intense cross-examination centered on one of the prosecution’s key allegations arising from Duterte’s controversial public statements made during her November 2024 online press conference.
While the witness maintained that investigators believed the alleged threat was supported by evidence gathered during their investigation, he admitted that his conclusion was based solely on investigative findings—not on firsthand knowledge.
“We do believe that the Vice President had contracted, but I don’t have personal knowledge. We believe based on the evidence that we’ve gathered and based on our investigation,” the witness told the impeachment court.
The presiding officer repeatedly instructed the witness to answer directly after several lengthy explanations prompted objections from the defense.
Throughout the cross-examination, defense lawyers sought to distinguish between proving that the Vice President publicly uttered controversial statements and proving that she actually intended to carry out the alleged assassination plot.
The witness confirmed that investigators had verified the existence of the statements through videos and other evidence.
However, when repeatedly asked whether he personally knew that Duterte had indeed hired someone to carry out the alleged killings, he answered in the negative.
The defense argued that an investigator’s belief, regardless of supporting evidence, is different from testimony based on firsthand knowledge.
Defense counsel also challenged the prosecution’s theory by pointing out that the alleged threats were delivered during a public online press conference broadcast live to thousands of viewers.
Asked whether it would make sense for someone genuinely planning an assassination to publicly announce such intentions before the entire nation, the witness declined to speculate.
“I don’t know that, Your Honor,” he replied.
The defense suggested that publicly making such statements could undermine the argument that they reflected an actual criminal plan.
Another major point of cross-examination involved President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s subsequent public statement expressing willingness to reconcile with Vice President Duterte.
The defense played a video in which the President said he remained open to reconciliation and preferred peace and political stability.
Counsel argued that such remarks appeared inconsistent with the claim that the President genuinely believed his life was under imminent threat.
The witness, however, declined to interpret the President’s state of mind.
“How would I know that, Your Honor?” he responded.
When pressed further, he admitted investigators could not definitively establish what the President personally believed beyond his public statements.
The defense also questioned portions of the witness’ affidavit, arguing that it appeared to attribute fear or apprehension to the President and other alleged victims.
The witness explained that investigators relied on public pronouncements made after the controversial statements but acknowledged that determining a person’s internal state of mind remained beyond the scope of direct personal knowledge.
The proceedings were marked by repeated objections from prosecutors and several reminders from the presiding officer for both sides to maintain courtroom decorum.
At one point, the presiding officer reminded counsel that the proceedings were judicial in nature.
“Counsel, kindly settle down. This is not a college debate,” the chair said while directing the witness to provide straightforward answers.
The day’s proceedings underscored one of the central issues confronting the impeachment court: whether the prosecution can establish not only that the Vice President uttered the controversial statements, but also that those statements reflected an actual and credible threat supported by sufficient evidence.
The impeachment trial resumes with the continuation of cross-examination and the presentation of additional evidence by both the prosecution and the defense.
ia/xf
