Bam Aquino: If lawyers say there's no hitman, was Sara Duterte lying?

MANILA, Philippines — If Vice President Sara Duterte’s lawyers deny that she contracted an assassin to kill ranking government officials, does this mean that her statements during a November 2024 online press briefing were mere lies?

This was the question posed by Senator-judge Bam Aquino during the resumption of the impeachment trial on Monday, after asking defense lawyer Mark Vinluan if their stand is that Duterte now denies contracting a hitman to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House of Representatives Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez if she herself gets killed.

When Vinluan answered in the affirmative, Aquino asked whether Duterte’s statements in the November 23, 2024 briefing were all lies.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: NBI witness: Sara Duterte threats vs Marcos ‘serious, real, and actual’

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“So your position is that is enough of a specific denial to the allegation that Vice President Sara talked to a hitman […] your answer is that the prosecution has to prove that there is a hitman, and you’re not denying that the Vice President spoke to a hitman?” Aquino asked.

“No, we are denying that, Your Honor, it’s just that that was our presentation and our answer,” Vinluan said.

“Okay, so for the record, you are denying that the Vice President actually spoke to a hitman, when in fact, Attorney (Jeremy) Lotoc said that she (Duterte) was not lying.  But what you are saying is that she lied and did not actually talk to a hitman.  Is that what you are saying?” Aquino asked.

Vinluan said that they do not know what is in the mind of Lotoc — the prosecution’s witness and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) official who was part of the team that investigated Duterte’s threats — but their answer is that Duterte denied talking to a hitman.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Yes, Your Honor. I don’t know what’s the frame of mind of Attorney Lotoc, but that is our answer, Your Honor, that she denied,” Vinluan said.

Duterte’s threats were the subject of Article IV of the Articles for Impeachment against her.  The threat, the prosecution claimed, came during an online briefing as she lashed out at the Marcos couple and Romualdez after her chief-of-staff, Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, was detained within the House premises.

Article continues after this advertisement

Lopez’s detention came after she was cited for contempt by the House committee on good government and public accountability of the 19th Congress, as she supposedly committed undue interference during the panel’s investigation of alleged confidential fund misuse within Duterte’s offices.

READ: Sara Duterte’s alleged threats not bound by freedom of speech – Lotoc

At one point, Duterte was asked if she is not concerned about her safety.  In response, the Vice President said that they should not worry about her security as she has already talked to a person to kill the President, the first lady, and the former Speaker, if she herself got killed.

Before questioning Vinluan, Aquino asked Lotoc whether they found any denial from Duterte during the course of their investigation.

Instead of a denial, Lotoc said that what they saw was an affirmation that Duterte talked to a hitman, in the form of a subsequent press briefing.

“In succeeding interviews, I’m sure you investigated this, was there a denial regarding the allegation that she talked to a person who would kill in case something happens to Vice President Duterte, have you watched any statement or investigated any denial in the succeeding interviews?” Aquino asked.

“Yes your Honor, there was a video dated November 26, 2024, in that video, instead of denying what happened on November 23, she reiterated that your Honor, she admitted that she talked to someone,” Lotoc replied.

“So she repeated it again,” Aquino added.

No general denial

Discussions on whether Duterte lied in her press briefing came from Aquino’s questions on whether the defense made a denial of the accusation that she committed grave threats.

When Vinluan said that they have denied this, and that they will present evidence to counter arguments that there was no denial, Aquino asked if this was already made in their answer to the Articles of Impeachment.

Vinluan maintained that they have issued a denial, but Aquino said that these were general denial — claims that Duterte’s statements were part of free speech.

The back-and-forth between Aquino and Vinluan prompted the senator-judge to ask for a checking of the records, particularly the defense’s answer.  When the answer was brought before the Senate Impeachment Court, Vinluan referred to Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 197.

“(Paragraph) 197, it says there, ‘finally no such purpose contemplated by law was attained or could have been attained precisely because the respondent did not have any purpose other than simply answer a speculative inquiry.’  So that is our position on the matter,” Vinluan said.

“Because we discussed in our answer that the presumption never shifts.  It is in light of our discussion that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove their claim, considering that according to our laws, he who alleges must prove,” he added.

While the defense panel has maintained that Duterte’s statements were part of free speech, several government officials and the prosecution team believe it was a grave threat — regardless of whether or not the Vice President executed a contract with an assassin to kill the three.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Last Wednesday, prosecution team member and San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora said that the prosecution panel believes that her statements alone constituted an impeachable offense. /mr