Duterte defense opposes admission of 2 witness testimonies at ICC

MANILA — The defense team of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has opposed the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution’s bid to admit the previously recorded testimonies of two witnesses in his crimes against humanity case, arguing that they should be cross-examined in court.

In a public redacted filing dated October 26, the defense asked the ICC Trial Chamber III to reject the prosecution’s request to admit the prior recorded testimonies of witnesses P-1393 and P-1416, while raising no objection to the admission of the testimony of a third witness, P-1370.

The defense said the testimonies of P-1393 and P-1416 concern disputed matters central to the case and require further examination to assess their credibility and the reliability of their accounts.

“The Defence supports the use of Rule 68(2)(b) to expedite the trial, particularly in light of Mr Duterte’s age and frailty. However, procedural efficiency must not come at the expense of his fundamental right to defend himself effectively,” the filing stated.

The prosecution’s application seeks to introduce the three witnesses’ previously recorded testimonies under Rule 68(2)(b) of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which allows the admission of prior recorded testimony under specified conditions, even without the witness appearing in court.

The defense argued that P-1393’s testimony goes beyond establishing alleged patterns of police conduct and directly implicates Duterte in alleged killings.

According to the filing, the witness attributed the alleged killing of a relative to payments purportedly made by Duterte to police officers, citing information he said he had received from police acquaintances.

The defense, however, questioned the basis of these allegations, arguing that the witness did not personally witness the death or the events leading up to it.

“Rather, he has sought to reconstruct what happened and infer the reasons behind it on the basis of hearsay information provided by third parties who are not Prosecution witnesses,” the filing stated.

It added that the witness’s account was “often contradictory and confused” and should not be admitted to substantiate matters central to the case that remain disputed.

The defense also questioned the reliability of P-1393’s testimony, citing alleged inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions in his account, some of which it said were identified by prosecution investigators.

It argued that cross-examination was necessary to establish the source of the witness’s information, assess its reliability, and determine whether it could assist the chamber in establishing the truth.

The defense likewise argued that P-1416’s testimony concerns a disputed incident covered by Count 3 of the charges against Duterte.

The filing said the witness’s account included observations of victims’ bodies and bullet wounds, as well as allegations concerning the circumstances of their deaths and the alleged involvement of police officers acting for monetary gain.

The defense said these matters required further examination, particularly because the witness’s statement was fewer than 10 pages long and did not indicate the questions asked by the prosecution during the interview.

It also pointed to alleged inconsistencies between P-1416’s account and another witness’s testimony concerning the same incident.

The defense argued that P-1416 was the only witness identified by the prosecution who could provide certain information about the incident and that other witnesses could not independently corroborate his account.

“The Defence therefore submits that the admission of P-1416’s prior recorded testimony without an opportunity to cross-examine him would compromise the rights of the accused,” the filing stated.

The defense asked the chamber to allow P-1416 to testify in person or, alternatively, under Rule 68(3), which would allow the defense to cross-examine him.

Aside from the two testimonies, the defense challenged the prosecution’s attempt to introduce documents associated with P-1393’s recorded testimony.

It argued that the witness had not meaningfully explained or demonstrated substantive knowledge of the contents of the documents, making them unsuitable for admission as materials integral to his testimony.

The defense cited an ICC chamber ruling that associated materials must be meaningfully addressed and explained by a witness, rather than merely referenced during an interview.

In its concluding request, the defense asked the chamber to reject the prosecution’s application concerning P-1393 and P-1416. Alternatively, it asked the chamber to exclude two specific documents identified in the filing.

The defense did not oppose the admission of P-1370’s prior recorded testimony.

The filing responds to the prosecution’s earlier application to introduce the three witnesses’ recorded statements as part of its evidence in the case against Duterte, who faces charges of crimes against humanity in connection with his administration’s war on drugs.