ICC prosecutors seek to streamline 3 key testimonies detailing police killings in Duterte case

MANILA — Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have formally requested to streamline the testimony of three key witnesses in the crimes against humanity case against former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, aiming to expedite court proceedings.

In a redacted public filing dated Oct. 21, 2026, the Office of the Prosecutor submitted its third application under Rule 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to introduce the prior recorded testimonies and associated documents of witnesses identified as P-0008, P-1164, and P-1303.

Rule 68(3) permits the ICC Trial Chamber to admit previously recorded witness interviews into evidence directly, provided the witnesses are physically present in court, attest to the accuracy of their statements, and make themselves available for cross-examination by the defense, victims’ legal representatives, and the judges.

“As the witnesses will be available for cross examination… Each witness will attest to their accuracy, be present in court, and available for examination… Their evidence is highly relevant and probative,” the document states.

According to Acting Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, approving the submission will significantly optimize trial proceedings by replacing lengthier direct examinations with focused supplementary questioning.

“Granting the request will enhance the expeditiousness of the proceedings by reducing the length of the witnesses’ direct examination… thus saving at least [REDACTED] hours of court time,” the filing stated.

The prosecution highlighted that the testimony from all three individuals provides critical evidence regarding multiple alleged murders charged under Count 3 of the case, directly pointing to a systematic “policy to ‘neutralize’ through violent crimes, including murder, alleged criminals in the Philippines.”

Specifically, witness P-0008 detailed various extrajudicial killings carried out by Philippine National Police (PNP) personnel, describing specific incidents involving police operations, including a “One Time Big Time (‘OTBT’)” operation.

“In her Prior Recorded Testimony, the witness describes extrajudicial killings perpetrated by police… during a One Time Big Time (“OTBT”) operation,” according to the filing.

“P-0008’s Prior Recorded Testimony consists of the witness’s four-day interview… and of the associated material that was used or explained by the witness during her interview,” the document added.

The witness’s submitted materials include interview transcripts across multiple days, three handwritten lists of URL links, and translated records related to alleged extrajudicial killings.

A second witness, P-1164, similarly provided details regarding police killings and challenged official law enforcement accounts.

“In her Prior Recorded Testimony, the witness describes the killing of [REDACTED] by PNP officers… and the extrajudicial killings perpetrated by police,” the filing noted.

The prosecution added that a newspaper report connected to one specific incident “claimed that [REDACTED] was shot by the police in an exchange of gunfire.”

The third witness, P-1303, provided evidence concerning PNP officers based at a specific location regarding a victim who was “shot and killed on or about [REDACTED] by PNP personnel.”

The witness offered accounts detailing drug-use allegations, discrepancies in documentation, and events leading up to the killing.

“P-1303 provides general evidence… related to drug use, as well as the [REDACTED] prior to his murder by PNP policemen,” according to the submission.

Addressing potential procedural concerns, the prosecution argued that fast-tracking these testimonies does not infringe upon the rights of the accused ex-president, as Duterte’s legal counsel will have full opportunity to cross-examine each witness in open court.

“The introduction into evidence of the Prior Recorded Testimonies is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the Accused, as the witnesses will be available for cross examination… the Defense will have ample opportunity to cross-examine them,” the filing stressed.

The defense was formally notified of the prosecution’s intent to invoke Rule 68(3) for these witnesses on Aug. 31, 2026.

The prosecution emphasized that the pre-recorded statements are reliable and probative, having been recorded in accordance with Article 55 of the Rome Statute and Rule 112 of the court rules.

“All Three Witnesses were informed of the voluntary nature of their interviews and of their rights,” the prosecution noted, adding that “the witnesses confirmed that they answered the questions of their own free will.”

The filing noted that the testimonies from P-0008, P-1164, and P-1303 are internally consistent and serve to corroborate accounts expected from several other direct viva voce (live) witnesses in the case.

The application remains subject to approval by the ICC Trial Chamber pending the formal fulfillment of Rule 68(3) conditions when the witnesses take the stand in The Hague.

“In accordance with the conditions set out in rule 68(3), the witnesses will be asked whether they consent to the introduction of their Prior Recorded Testimonies into the record,” the document concluded.