Vinluan: Sara Duterte remarks vs Marcos ‘not threats in the first place’

MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Sara Duterte’s defense team asserted on Tuesday that the remarks she made on contracting an individual to take down President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez are “not threats in the first place.”

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan made the characterization when Senator-judge Pia Cayetano asked all parties, including the prosecution’s witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, how they interpreted grave threats.

“It is our position that the statements made by the vice president were not threats in the first place. That’s why we were categorizing it as a response, a mere response, to a Q&A (question and answer),” Vinluan said.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: VP threats vs Marcos ‘serious, real’ – NBI exec

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The lawyer was referring to Duterte’s remarks during an online press briefing on November 23, 2024 when she unveiled a supposed “assassination plot.” And should she pass away, she had already contracted people to avenge her by killing the president, first lady and former House speaker.

But Vinluan stressed that Duterte’s alleged threats were not aimed at the three mentioned.

“It was never aimed directly at BBM, FL and the former speaker. In other words, had they not watched the video, for example, they wouldn’t have known about it,” Vinluan added.

On the other hand, both Lotoc and House prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan answered similarly, citing Supreme Court decisions that say the recipient of such statements need not feel threatened for the accused to be convicted of grave threats.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: WATCH: VP Duterte’s video statements ‘happened in real life’

First to answer the question was Ligutan, who cited the Supreme Court case of Santiago Paera vs. People of the Philippines from May 30, 2011.

Article continues after this advertisement

“It was said there, there is no law that requires a private complainant… to execute an affidavit so that the accused can be found guilty of grave threat,” Ligutan began.

“There is another case – no less than the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It was said there, it is not necessary that the recipient himself felt fear or that the threat was serious. To repeat, this is what the Supreme Court said: “All that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect,” Ligutan continued.

Lotoc, likewise said the NBI, upon investigation of Duterte’s press conference, based their recommendation to file a grave threat charge against the vice president on a Supreme Court decision from March 16, 2022, Pedrito Garma versus People of the Philippines.

“One of the things that was said in Garma versus People is that the recipient does not need to intimidate or treat the threat seriously. It is sufficient to show that the intention of the offender is to intimidate and treat the utterances or threatening remarks he made seriously,” Lotoc explained.

He further expounded on the investigation process of the NBI for the case, saying they determined first if there is actus reus and mens rea – both of which, Lotoc said, were met.

“Actus reus is whether the offender, in fact, uttered the threatening remarks… The test of mens rea, what we did was we interpret the utterances objectively and in the light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, the manner in which those utterances were spoken, the person to whom they were addressed, the relationship between the parties, and then the reactions of the recipients.”

Cayetano asked the question to the three in the middle of the Defense’s cross-examination of Lotoc as the court tackles the impeachment Article IV, referring to the vice president’s alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Lotoc is only the second witness presented before the impeachment court, thus far, with six days left allotted to the examination of the said article. /mr