Sara Duterte counsel bolstered admission of threat vs. Marcos — lawyer

The statements of Vice President Sara Duterte's counsel justifying her actions amid an alleged plot against her life and her family strengthened the admission that she threatened President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., a legal expert said Thursday.

This came after one of Duterte's lawyers asserted during her impeachment trial that the Vice President and her family were "threatened," and although her "response was unconventional, it was justified."

Interviewed on Super Radyo dzBB, law professor and litigation lawyer Howard Calleja said, "Ang sinabi niya that the threat is justifiable. Eh, inamin na niya na may threat. If you are saying it is justifiable, it is a justifying circumstance."

(He said that the threat is justifiable. Well, he has already admitted that there was a threat. If you are saying it is justifiable, then it is a justifying circumstance.)

"If you are asking for a justifying circumstance, you already admit to the circumstance of doing such an act. Inamin na niya na mayroong act of threat, whether it's justifiable or not, it's up to the senator judges to decide on that," he added.

"Parang mong sinabi, mayroon kang pinatay, pero pinatay mo dahil ganito o ganyan. So, na-establish mo na na mayroon kang pinatay. In this case, established na mayroon nang threat... Natawa nga ako nang narinig ko 'yun eh. Kasi it's not only established by the witness, it was even reestablished or re-, in-increase pa ng depensa mismo by saying it is justified. As I said, justifying circumstance already admits to the act," Calleja added.

(It's as if you're saying, 'I killed someone, I killed that person because of this and that.' So, you established that you killed someone. In this case, it's established that there was a threat... I was amused when I heard that because it was not established by the witness, it was even reestablished or increased by the defense itself by saying it is justified. As I said, justifying circumstance already admits to the act.)

Meanwhile, Calleja said it must be established whether there was malice in issuing the threat.

"'Pag mayroon ka nang hinire, sedition na po 'yun. Ito grave threats po ito… ang threats, is only to prove malice, not to prove na mayroon ka nang kumbaga, ipapakilala mo 'yung hitman," he said.

(Once you have already hired someone, that is already sedition. This involves grave threats… the threats are only to establish malice, not to prove that you have, so to speak, already identified or presented the hitman.)

Speaking at the end of the examination of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) senior agent John Mark Calilung during the impeachment trial, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan sought to give context about Duterte's supposed threat to Marcos.

"Si VP Sara na mismo ang nagsabi na hindi 'assasin' ang kinausap niya. This term only came from people who took her statements out of their proper context and tried to exaggerate them for what they really meant. She and her family were threatened and while her response was unconventional, it was justified," Vinluan said.

'Solid' testimony

Meanwhile, Calleja said the defense panel allegedly failed to discredit Calilung's credibility.

"Tingin ko hindi nabasag 'yung kanyang testimonya. 'Yung kanyang credibility ay soildo sa aking pananaw," Calleja said.

(I do not think his testimony was undermined. In my view, his credibility remains solid.)

Calleja noted that Calilung remained calm while undergoing cross-examination.

The lawyer said that the witness was able to stand by the evidence he provided.

"Lahat naman po 'yan ay napatunayan niya na siya ay kumbaga, let's say video o nakapag-record at mayroon siyang kaalaman sa mga dokumentong napresenta," he said.

(He was able to establish all of that, that he had, so to speak, videos or recordings, and that he had knowledge of the documents that were presented.)

"Doon sa mga testimonya on his personal knowledge, malinaw na hindi naman hearsay kung hindi part ito ng kanyang imbestigasyon at part ng personal na nalaaman," he added.

(As for the testimony based on his personal knowledge, it is clear that it is not hearsay if it formed part of his investigation and was based on what he personally came to know.)

Testimony recognized

Calleja said that Calilung could have been excluded as a witness if there was a question with his competency.

"Pero hindi naman nila in-exclude, meaning 'yung kanyang mga sinabi ay part ng kanyang testimonya," he said.

(But they did not exclude it, meaning that what he said remains part of his testimony.)

Calleja, meanwhile, questioned Senator Robin Padilla's last question.

"Ilang beses na tinanong 'yung kredibilidad, bakit niya tatanungin ulit at the end, no? Ang sa akin, siguro, makinig at pangaralan mabuti para hindi tayo nagsasayang ng oras," he said.

(Questions were asked several times about his credibility. Why ask it again at the end? As far as I’m concerned, it would be better to listen carefully and study the matter thoroughly so that we do not waste time.)

— VDV, GMA News