Kapunan: Defense tried to divert us from impeachment to criminal case

MANILA, Philippines — The defense panel tried to divert discussions on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte to a criminal matter and deliberately misinform the public about the evidence needed for a conviction, counsel for the prosecution Lorna Kapunan claimed on Tuesday.

In a press briefing after the fifth day of the trial, Kapunan said that they are thankful to senator-judges who steered back discussions to the merits of an impeachment case, after the defense mentioned that grave threats cases should be tried before municipal trial courts (MTCs) or regional trial courts (RTCs), and inciting to sedition raps before MTCs.

“What they have tried to do and we are very appreciative that they brought it back to discussions of impeachable offense because we were talking about prison penalties, that it should be MTC that should handle grave threats cases and inciting to sedition […] There is a deliberate attempt to misinform the viewing public,” Kapunan told reporters.

Article continues after this advertisement

“This is not a criminal case, the criminal case, yes that is pending with the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation), one count of sedition and three counts of grave threats, that is the criminal case pending before the DOJ (Department of Justice). And that was what the defense focused on, the criminal case. But wait, this is so far from the pending criminal case with the DOJ,” she added.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: Sara Duterte’s kill remark vs Marcos is ‘active threat’ – Palace

According to Kapunan, the discussions on an impeachment case should revolve around the fitness of an impeachable official to serve based on the issues hurled at her — in this case, alleged betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

“What we are talking about here is not the criminal cases, we are talking about fitness, a public official who makes statements like that, who has shown her emotional instability, who has shown how she can—and is capable of—carrying out her threats. What is that, is that punishable by six months’ imprisonment?” Kapunan asked.

Kapunan did not mention exactly when the alleged diversion came, but lawyer Mark Vinluan of the defense panel dedicated parts of his cross-examination of NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc to determining the difference between a felony and a crime.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: With or without contract to kill, VP made impeachable offense – lawmaker

Lotoc was called to the stand as a witness for the prosecution for Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte, or the grave threats grounds.

Article continues after this advertisement

When Lotoc—a lawyer by profession—differentiated felonies and crimes, Vinluan then raised a point that grave threats must be tried at MTCs and RTCs, and inciting to sedition before RTCs.

“So it is a felony because it is defined and punished by the RTC and it is punishable by arresto mayor or one month and one day to six months of imprisonment,” Vinluan said. “All right, in other words grave threats are under the jurisdiction of the MTC or RTC, as the case may be, correct?”

“Grave threats? Yeah, but only if it’s grave threats, sir,” Lotoc replied.

Vinluan then moved a step further, asking if both offenses are not impeachable offenses. In response, Lotoc said that this will be up for the interpretation of senator-judges, not him.

“So both grave threats and inciting to sedition are felonies. In other words they are not impeachable offenses, if you know?” Vinluan said.

“Well if you mean by impeachable offenses, whether or not they will qualify as betrayal of public trust, it’s the appreciation of the judges, your Honor. That’s not for us to decide,” Lotoc replied.

Impeachment court, not criminal

It was Senator-judge Vicente Sotto III, meanwhile, who clarified that the case being tackled by the Senate Impeachment Court is about impeachment, and not the grave threats and inciting to sedition raps.

“I was lost eh, because I think that even some members of the public who are watching were lost in the discussion of grave threats and inciting to sedition. Aren’t those complaints charged before regular courts, Mr. Witness?” Sotto asked.

“As far as I know, as far as the NBI Cybercrime Division is concerned, there are no cases before the court yet, your Honor, it is still in the preliminary investigation stage,” Lotoc said.

“But you file that within regular courts, right? […] what was filed before this impeachment court, betrayal of public trust, right? And other high crimes, not grave threats and inciting to sedition, right?” Sotto asked again, to which Lotoc replied in the affirmative.

During the trial, Kapunan thanked Sotto for reminding the public about the true purpose of the court.

“And thank you to the senator-judges for the clarificatory questions propounded, and I’d specifically like to say thank you to Senator Tito Sen, Vicente Sotto, for, in his brief statement, by virtue of clarificatory, brought us back to what this trial is all about,” Kapunan said.

“We are not a criminal court and much time has been spent (questioning) is there grave threats? Is there inciting to sedition? All of this is relevant, but in the context of is it by doing this grave threats and by inciting to sedition, does it make the Vice President a violator of the Constitution? Does it make her a violator of her solemn oath of office?” she added.

Duterte’s threats, contained in Article IV, is the first topic to be discussed by the Senate Impeachment Court. Two witnesses have been called to the witness stand already—NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung who was called last Tuesday and Wednesday, and Lotoc who was examined on Monday and Tuesday.

The threats from Duterte against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez came during an online briefing last November 23, 2024, as she lashed out over the House’s decision to detain her chief-of-staff, Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez.

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

At one point in the briefing, 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 three if she herself got killed.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The defense panel has maintained that Duterte’s statements were part of free speech, but 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. /cb