Duterte Trial: Lawyers Split on Key Criminal Intent Element

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte enters its second week Monday with legal experts sharply divided over whether the prosecution has established criminal intent behind her alleged grave threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said the House prosecution panel presented sufficient evidence of mens rea, an essential element of grave threats under the Revised Penal Code. He cited testimony from National Bureau of Investigation Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, who explained how investigators assessed the capability of the person making the threat to carry it out. "She has the capability to do it. If she did not, then it would simply be treated as a joke," Azcuna said.

Azcuna stressed that proving criminal intent does not automatically make Duterte liable. "The prosecution has, in my view, shifted the burden of the evidence to the defense, which can still rebut and correct the conclusion drawn," he said. Duterte may still show through counsel that she was not serious or that her remarks were justified by a perceived threat, he added. "This is, after all, not a criminal case but a case for accountability involving the country's second highest official. It is not game over. Rather, the ball is still in play," Azcuna said.

International law expert Melissa Loja took a sharply different view. She said the prosecution has yet to establish an impeachable offense for which Duterte can be convicted. "All said, there is no picture emerging of an impeachable offense," Loja said. She called the first two days of testimony wasted on an issue never disputed – the authenticity of Duterte's video statement. The defense could challenge admissibility under the Rules on Electronic Evidence if the recording was selectively edited, she said.