Sara Duterte Counsel's Justification of Threat Bolsters Admission vs. Marcos, Says Lawyer

A legal expert stated that Vice President Sara Duterte's counsel's justification of her actions amid alleged threats strengthens the admission that she threatened President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. 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, "The 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. It is established that there was an act of threat, whether it's justifiable or not, it's up to the senator judges to decide on that," he 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," Calleja added. Meanwhile, Calleja said that it must be established whether there was malice in issuing the threat. "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. "VP Sara herself said that she did not talk to an 'assassin.' 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. Meanwhile, Calleja said the defense panel allegedly failed to discredit Calilung's credibility. "I do not think his testimony was undermined. In my view, his credibility remains solid," Calleja said. 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. "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." "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," he added. Calleja said that Calilung could have been excluded as a witness if there was a question with his competency. "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. "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." Source: GMA News Philippines