Truth in Sara’s mind
People may interpret Sara Duterte’s actions and words differently based on their own biases and perspectives. But as I’ve said, only she truly knows her motivations and the context of her statements.
Text size
Daily TribunePeople may interpret Sara Duterte’s actions and words differently based on their own biases and perspectives. But as I’ve said, only she truly knows her motivations and the context of her statements.
Can you truly read someone’s thoughts? Can you tell whether a person is being honest or simply putting on a facade?
Internal thoughts and intentions are inherently private. Even if there are public statements or actions, the true intentions behind them may not be fully disclosed or may be misinterpreted by others. There is a fine line between genuine intention and deceptive behavior, between sincerity and pretense.
At the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, witness Melvin Matibag, the director of the National Bureau of Investigation, expressed confidence in the strength of the bureau’s investigation into the Vice President’s alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition, which is outlined in the fourth article of impeachment.
Matibag talked of the widespread awareness and of the NBI’s continuing investigation into the Vice President’s threats to have the President, the First Lady, and former Speaker of the House Martin Romualdez killed if she were to be killed first. She also claimed to have contacted someone to carry out this plan.
While this statement is serious, the impact of the last phrase could be diminished, as some people often mix threats with humor — even if they don’t mean it — to make someone believe it. I used to say, “It’s not a joke. Peks man, mamatay man ako!” when I was a kid and even as an adult if I wanted to stress something and make someone take what I said seriously. The thing is, only I knew whether what I was saying was true or a bluff.
Which brings me to what I believe in. People may interpret Sara Duterte’s actions and words differently based on their own biases and perspectives. But as I’ve said, only she truly knows her motivations and the context of her statements.
Proving someone’s intention to commit a crime requires clear evidence. If no direct evidence exists and much of the discourse is based on hearsay or speculation, then determining the truth becomes even more elusive.
The complexity of human intentions, along with the nuances of communication and the legal challenges involved in proving such claims, is significant. These factors contribute to why truth predominantly exists in the mind of the individual making those claims.
It would be incredibly challenging for the NBI to prove a threat of assassination or the hiring of a hitman because tangible evidence in such cases is often minimal. Demonstrating that someone has contracted a hitman, especially without names or concrete details, is an extremely serious accusation. These claims are typically based more on hearsay than on solid evidence.
The absence of direct proof makes it difficult to establish a connection between the threat, the hitman, and the accused. No joke, but why do I have this strange feeling that the NBI would not be able to prove it until 2028 or beyond?
