Kaufman at ICC: No evidence vs. Duterte in Espinosa, Parojinog killings

There is no evidence linking former President Rodrigo Duterte to the killings of Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa, Ozamiz Mayor Reynaldo Parojinog, and Benjamin Visda, his defense lawyer on his International Criminal Court (ICC) case said Friday.

As lawyer Nicholas Kaufman continued to present the defense’s submissions on the merits, he said that Duterte’s involvement in Espinosa’s case ended when the latter surrendered. 

In August 2016, Kaufman said Duterte gave Espinosa a 24-hour ultimatum to surrender and commended the late mayor when he did.

“So if we look at it from the point of view of Rodrigo Duterte, that is where the incident ended, despite Mr. Jeremy exhorting us to believe otherwise,” he said during the last day of the confirmation of charges hearings.

“What happened thereafter, as awful as it may be, had nothing to do with our client. And not one witness can say that,” he added.

To recall, following his surrender, Espinosa and drug suspect Raul Yap were killed in an alleged shootout inside the Baybay City Provincial Jail.

Meanwhile, Kaufman said that the prosecution’s case on the death of Parajinog rested exclusively on a witness who was “unable to provide complete or reliable testimony.”

On July 30, 2017, Parojinog and several others were killed in a predawn drug raid at the Parojinog family compound.

“Contemporaneous police reports reflect that these police operations proceeded pursuant to six judicial search warrants, something hardly consistent with a premeditated murder scheme,” he said.

“After all, if the intention was cold-blooded murder, why go to the bother of involving a judge?” he added.

Kaufman said that official investigative materials indicate that cops were met with gunfire when they attempted to serve the warrant, prompting a return of fire.

He said that four individuals were also arrested.

“That fact alone is not consistent with the theory of indiscriminate execution but is rather consistent instead with arrest and prosecution within the boundaries of the law and not indiscriminate use of force,” he said.

Kaufman also said there was no evidence linking Duterte to Visda’s killing.

“There is no evidence that Mr. Duterte knew of Visda, that he directed the operation, or that he approved its planning, nor has the prosecution demonstrated that the incident would not have occurred in substantially the same way absent his alleged contribution,” he said. 

The ICC Prosecution previously cited the killings of Espinosa, Parajinog, and Visda. The Prosecution showed a video of Visda allegedly being forced onto a motorcycle between two police officers while in handcuffs and driven away.

The prosecution said 20 minutes later, Visda was dead and was “shot multiple times in the head by police officers.”

“To summarize, across incidents 10 to 14, Count 2, we see absolutely no evidence of any attribution to Mr. Duterte on a granular level, nor do we see any evidence of a mutually agreed cause of conduct on the upper hierarchical level of government, involving Mr. Duterte,” he said.

However, in his closing remark, Prosecutor and Senior Trial Lawyer Julian Nicholls said that Espinosa and Yap were noted as “neutralized” on Duterte’s list, not on the day of their arrest but on the days they were killed.

“These two victims… they are noted as neutralized on the list, not on the day that they are arrested, not on the day they go to jail. They are marked neutralized on the days they are killed, so they were neutralized at the time they were murdered, per Mr. Duterte’s government at the time,” he said.   

'Not a witch hunt'

Kaufman argued that the term “high-value target” was an operational classification used by law enforcement.

“HVT is not a code for an instruction to kill or a witch hunt. It as a prioritization tool within anti-drug operations applied across regions and units on the basis of intelligence assessments, alleged position within the drug networks, or inclusion on watchlists,” Kaufman said.

“Classification does not imply selection for murder, any more than it is proof of unlawful intent,” he added.  

The ICC Prosecutor has charged Duterte with 3 counts of crimes against humanity (murder and attempted murder) during his term as mayor and president.

Under count 2, killings were allegedly perpetrated by members of the “National Network” across the Philippines during his presidency between 2016 and 2017. This covers 14 victims labelled as “high-value targets.”

Kaufman said that when incidents falling under count 2 are examined individually, the pattern is similar.
“Namely, heavy reliance on insider testimony, wishful and selective reading of police reports, and dubious and tenous linkage to Rodrigo Duterte,” he said. 

READ: DAY IN COURT: ICC Hearings on the Charges vs. Duterte

'High value-targets not an order to kill’

On Count 2, defense arguments questioned the prosecution’s framing of alleged killings involving so-called “high-value targets,” asserting that the term was improperly treated as evidence of a criminal plan. The defense said the label merely referred to the prioritization of suspects in law enforcement operations and did not constitute an order or policy to kill.

According to the defense, the deaths cited by prosecutors occurred during police responses to perceived threats, where lethal force is legally permitted only when lives are in danger.

The defense said that in most cases cited, firearms were recovered at the crime scenes. In other instances, forensic findings such as gunpowder residue on victims’ hands were presented as inconsistent with claims of execution-style killings.

Allegations that weapons were planted at scenes, the defense argued, relied on uncorroborated insider testimony and assumptions rather than eyewitness accounts.

Overall, the defense maintained that the prosecution failed to present solid, corroborated evidence to support allegations of premeditated or state-directed killings.

‘No fantasy common plan’

On Count 3, the defense challenged the prosecution’s presentation of statistics and evidence, arguing that figures cited on killings linked to police operations were misstated and misleading.

While the prosecution claimed that dozens of deaths resulted from a single set of operations, the defense said the evidence showed individuals from different municipalities were brought to the same province, undermining claims of a single murder incident or coordinated action.

“There is nothing to link this to a fantasy common plan. Everything is stitched together,” the defense said.

Addressing allegations of evidence planting, which the prosecution described as an “open secret,” the defense countered that the cases presented followed a consistent pattern of police acting in self-defense.

The defense argued there was no forensic or ballistic evidence disproving official police reports and maintained that such documents remain credible unless proven otherwise.

Overall, the defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of an approval process, a common plan, or a chain of command linking former president Rodrigo Duterte to police actions on the ground.

The defense said instructions cited by prosecutors were attributable to local officials rather than a centralized policy or organization, weakening claims of systematic or state-directed killings. –NB, GMA Integrated News