THIS SATURDAY, cameras were trained on Vice President Sara Duterte as she was posting bail with the regional trial court of Quezon City in order for her to gain temporary liberty while her case for grave threats is being heard.
The grave threats are among the articles of impeachment now also being tried before the Senate impeachment court.
In November 2024, to recall, the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government cited her Chief of Staff, Zuleika Lopez, for contempt in the Congress’ probe into the confidential funds of Sara Duterte.
***
Lopez was ordered detained within the vicinity of the House of Representatives.
The VP decided to stay in the office of her brother Representative Paolo “Polong” Duterte. She then held an online press conference where she made several statements against the administration of President Bongbong Marcos and threatened to have the President, the First Lady, and the former House Speaker killed by an unnamed assassin.
She also said, “’Wag kang mag-alala sa security ko kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sinabi ko sa kanya, ‘pag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, Liza Araneta, at si Martin Romualdez. No joke. No joke.”
***
The VP’s tirades were broadcast simultaneously and heard by practically everyone.
She added, “Nagbilin na ako, Ma’am. ‘Pag namatay ako, ‘wag ka tumigil hanggang hindi mo mapapatay sila. And then he said yes.”
After almost two years, she is facing criminal prosecution for her quoted statements.
***
What are her possible defenses?
Her immediate protestation that she may not be prosecuted while holding office as an impeachable official has effectively been denied with the issuance of a warrant for her arrest.
Unless restrained by a higher court on the same issue, the criminal proceedings against her are bound to continue.
***
According to previously decided cases, the crime of Grave Threats is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.
The actus reus, or the unlawful conduct that forms the external element of the crime, is the actual speaking or uttering of the threats of a crime such as death or serious bodily harm.
On the other hand, the mens rea, or the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing, is that she intended that the recipient of her words to feel intimidated by such words. Meaning, that the accused calculated the words to be taken seriously.
***
Will the prosecution be able to present evidence that will satisfy the elements of the offense?
The threat amounts to the crime of murder or homicide.
Can it be shown that with her statements VP Sara had made a clear and unequivocal threat that an unnamed assassin stands ready to kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker?
***
In a previous column we implied that the grave threats case may be a test case for the more serious crime of plunder.
Jurisprudence has so far identified only the President as immunize from criminal prosecution while holding office./PN
