National Bureau of Investigation Regional Director Atty. Jeremy Lotoc testified that alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. can constitute "grave threats" without proof of a hired assassin [1].
The testimony arrives during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, where the legal definition of criminal threats is central to the proceedings. Establishing whether these statements meet the threshold of a grave threat could determine the legal weight of the allegations against the vice president.
During the hearing, Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros questioned the validity of the charges, specifically asking if the absence of a hired assassin invalidated the claim of a grave threat [1]. Lotoc said the legal elements of the offense clarify the inquiry.
"The presence of an assassin is not an essential element of the offense," Lotoc said [1].
Lotoc said that the nature of the threat is the primary focus of the law rather than the specific means of execution. He said that "'grave threats' may apply with or without conditions" [1].
The proceedings are focused on determining if the alleged communications and threats directed at President Marcos Jr. meet the statutory requirements for a criminal offense. The NBI's interpretation suggests that the intent and the gravity of the threat itself are sufficient for the charge, regardless of whether a third-party operative was contracted to carry out the act [1].
This legal distinction remains a point of contention as the Senate continues to evaluate the evidence presented in the impeachment case against Duterte [1].
“"The presence of an assassin is not an essential element of the offense."”
This testimony narrows the defense's ability to dismiss the 'grave threats' charge based solely on the lack of a physical operative. By decoupling the crime from the necessity of a hired assassin, the prosecution can focus on the verbal or written nature of the threats, potentially lowering the evidentiary bar required to sustain the allegation in the impeachment trial.
