Murderous intent

The first five days of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte were spent establishing the authenticity of the video recordings where the VP said that in the event that she was killed (or died, though in what manner she did not say) someone she had already contacted would be out there to kill President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. With the video recordings’ authenticity established, what high crime did the VP commit, and was there betrayal of public trust?

Some legal experts have noted that of the four articles of impeachment against the VP—misuse of public funds, unexplained wealth, bribery and graft, and assassination threats against particular persons—presented before the impeachment court, the grave threats in her utterances might be the simplest when compared with the other three. Only two prosecution witnesses have been presented so far, namely, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) senior agent and cybercrime investigator John Mark Calilung and NBI’s former cybercrime head, lawyer Jeremy Lotoc, now regional director of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

How these two men were able to hold their ground and remain unruffled without cracking after continuous cross-examination is a wonder. Suddenly, senator-judge Robinhood Padilla wanted to be recognized to show his knowledge about the Romanovs of Russia and to ask Lotoc whether his position as NBI regional director was a promotion (what was he getting at?), and what Lotoc knew about Islam. What effrontery.

The words often used to describe the VP’s rantings on video were “grave threats” and “warnings,” which Lotoc insisted were seditious as they would arouse listeners to commit acts against the government. All the while, in my nonlegal mind, were the words “murderous intent” and “intent to kill.” Only much later did I hear prosecution lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan use the word intention, but not in an emphatic way. Suddenly, I thought of the 1990s long-running murder mystery TV series “Murder, She Wrote” starring Angela Lansbury as crime writer and amateur investigator Jessica Fletcher.

Day 6 brought a freshness to the trial. Private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan told the court that two witnesses (hostile witnesses, I suppose), lawyer and the VP’s chief of staff Zuleika Lopez (she who, a couple of years back, had a dramatic meltdown when she learned she might be detained at the Women’s Correctional) and Capt. Belinda Bello would no longer be called to the witness stand. Redundant, surplusage, unnecessary, Kapunan told the media, but grave threats have been established. Some other time perhaps. “More coming,” she said.

But the soft, cooling rain came from Akbayan party list Rep. Chel Diokno, member of the prosecution team and a former dean of the De La Salle University College of Law, when he explained why presenting the VP and her husband’s tax records and bank accounts was not a “fishing expedition” as defense lawyer Michael Wesley Poa asserted.

Diokno: “The prosecution’s request is to expose the whole truth so that this court may know the truth … and make its decision based on that. Are we going to open the door of truth or block it?” The bank accounts of high government officials are not covered by the bank secrecy law, he added, and cited the case of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, who also faced an impeachment court.

From the Inquirer report, which deserves to be highlighted, ICYMI: “Diokno added that Duterte’s bank records ‘increased significantly’ in 2007, with transactions that included P704.93 million in 2009, P648.58 million in 2010, and P597.15 million in 2011.” Diokno called them “notable peaks.” Duterte was vice mayor of Davao City from 2007 to 2010, and then mayor from 2010 to 2013.

Diokno reminded that confidentiality should not be the prevailing principle in the impeachment proceedings. He ended with these words to remember: “Hindi confidential ang katotohanan.” (The truth is not confidential.)