Duterte defense questions ex-DDS hitman affidavit: ‘Unnotarized’ document should not be used to support violence claims
Daily TribuneVice President Sara Duterte’s defense team on Tuesday questioned the use of a statement from confessed Davao Death Squad (DDS) leader Arturo Lascañas, arguing that an unnotarized document cannot be treated as an affidavit or used as evidence without proper authentication.
During the direct examination, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag cited Lascañas’ statement before the Senate impeachment court to support the prosecution’s claim that Duterte had a “pattern of violence” that showed she was capable of carrying out an alleged plot to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
“In that affidavit, Lascañas describes and says that the Vice President herself was involved in Oplan Tokhang, and as one of the architects of Oplan Tokhang,” Matibag told House prosecutors during questioning.
Lascañas’ affidavit, which was entered into the impeachment trial records, allegedly links Duterte to the DDS, a group accused of carrying out killings in Davao City. Matibag said the document contained allegations that Duterte was involved in the implementation of Oplan Tokhang, the anti-drug campaign launched under the administration of her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
Defense lawyer Michael Poa, however, said the document’s legal status was a key issue, arguing that the Senate impeachment court should not allow evidentiary standards to be disregarded despite the more flexible nature of impeachment proceedings.
“When it is notarized, it becomes a public document. Whereas if there is no notary, it is only a private document,” Poa told reporters after the proceedings.
Because of that distinction, he said the defense does not consider the document an affidavit. “That is why we don’t call it an affidavit. It only becomes an affidavit when you swear to the truth of what you are saying,” he added.
The defense’s objection echoed arguments raised during the hearing by defense lawyer Mark Vinluan, who questioned Matibag’s authority to testify about the contents of Lascañas’ statement because he was neither the author nor the affiant.
Vinluan argued that allowing Matibag to discuss the document could mislead the senator-judges and the public, describing it as merely a “scrap of paper” because it had not been formally offered as evidence during the trial’s pre-trial stage.
House prosecutors disagreed, saying the statement could qualify as a declaration against interest because Lascañas allegedly admitted his own participation in the DDS.
During a late-night online press conference on Nov. 23, 2024, Duterte said she had contracted someone to kill Marcos, Araneta-Marcos and Romualdez if she herself were killed. Earlier that month, she had also spoken about wanting to behead Marcos amid a public fallout between the two leaders.
Matibag said the NBI considered the alleged threats an “absolute threat” based on factors including a supposed pattern of violence, the seriousness of the statements, Duterte’s identity and position, capability and alleged motive.
“From our law enforcement perspective, the threat made by the Vice President is not only a threat but also a plan to kill our President,” Matibag said. “The threat to the President is also a threat to our national security.”
Poa said the defense’s position remained that the Senate impeachment court must balance its wider discretion with the constitutional right of Duterte to a fair proceeding.
“People always say the rules are liberally constructed, meaning they will not strictly impose the rules. Our position is that we always have to follow the rules, whether it be the rules on impeachment according to the Senate rules, the Constitution or the Rules of Court, which is supplementary in nature,” Poa said.
