The shadow of Arturo Lascañas loomed over Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday, with defense lawyers reviving questions about the former policeman’s shifting testimony in a bid to challenge the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)’s conclusion that the Vice President exhibited a pattern of violence.

NBI chief Melvin Matibag testified this week that investigators included Lascañas’ affidavit — alongside digital evidence, public statements and other materials — in concluding that Duterte’s November 2024 remarks against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. formed part of a broader pattern rather than an isolated statement.

“Is this the same Lascañas who appeared before the Senate in 2016-2017?” Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan asked.

“Yes, sir,” Matibag replied.

In 2016, Lascañas initially denied the existence of the DDS and disputed claims made by another confessed member, Edgar Matobato. Five months later, he returned to the Senate and said his earlier testimony was false, claiming the group carried out killings during Rodrigo Duterte’s years as mayor of Davao City.

Lascañas later submitted an affidavit in 2024 to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has investigated alleged crimes against humanity linked to Duterte’s anti-drug campaign.

The affidavit accused both the older and younger Duterte, and several other officials of participating in or facilitating alleged extrajudicial killings. The Duterte family rejected the allegations.

Seeking to underscore that reversal, Vinluan cited the findings of the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs, formerly chaired by senator-judge Panfilo Lacson, suggesting that Lascañas’ change in testimony had led to a recommendation related to perjury.

Lacson later interrupted to clarify the committee’s findings.”I will confirm that Arturo Lascañas retracted and changed his testimony after several hearings. But I did not file a perjury case. I just want to correct that,” he said.

The senator explained that his committee had instead recommended amending the Revised Penal Code to increase the penalty for perjury, rather than pursuing charges against Lascañas.

Vinluan later turned to the NBI’s handling of the Lascañas affidavit, asking whether investigators had subpoenaed the former policeman to verify its contents before using it in their assessment.

“After you had obtained this document, did you subpoena Lascañas to verify the contents?” he asked.

“Hindi po,” Matibag replied.

Instead, the NBI chief testified, investigators subjected the affidavit to the bureau’s standard validation process, comparing it with other intelligence reports, open-source information, digital evidence and public records before concluding it could be used as part of their assessment.

“Kalaunan ito ay ginamit na namin na isang basehan sa pattern of violence,” Matibag said.

Padilla weighs in

Questions over witness credibility resurfaced later in the proceedings when senator-judge Robin Padilla entered the exchange. Referring to Lascañas’ conflicting affidavit, Padilla asked whether a person who repeatedly changed his account could be considered truthful.

“Ano ang tawag sa taong paiba-iba ang sinasabi? Di ba po, sinungaling?” Padilla asked.

Lead prosecutor Rep. Gerville Luistro sought to qualify her response, saying the question referred to a particular witness. She added that when a witness gives conflicting statements, it may become difficult to determine which version is truthful.

Padilla said the issue echoed concerns raised during previous Senate inquiries.

“Napakaliwanag po ng sinabi ni Senator Judge Panfilo Lacson. Ako mismo ay gumawa rin ng panukala na dapat iyong mga nagsisinungaling dito, iyong paiba-iba ng testimony, ay dagdagan ang sintensa ng perjury. Kailangan amendahan ang batas na iyan,” he said.

Padilla then urged the prosecution to avoid presenting witnesses he said were facing perjury cases, referring to earlier prosecution witnesses NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc and senior agent John Mark Calilung.

Neither Lotoc nor Calilung is facing a perjury case. Both NBI officials previously testified for the prosecution on the bureau’s investigation into Duterte’s 23 November 2024 livestream, with Lotoc discussing the investigation and Calilung authenticating digital evidence presented before the impeachment court.