THE Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday filed a criminal case for grave threats against Vice President Sara Duterte before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), saying prosecutors found prima facie evidence to indict her over the controversial remarks that triggered a separate impeachment proceeding.
DOJ spokesman Polo Martinez said the information was filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court at around 1:30 p.m., marking the transition of the case from the prosecution stage to the judiciary.
The charge is for grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, according to Martinez.
Martinez said the case is the same matter earlier referred by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to the DOJ and is also among the issues being raised in the impeachment proceedings against Duterte.
The NBI had previously investigated Duterte’s controversial statements in which she said she had arranged for someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House speaker Martin Romualdez should she herself be killed. The bureau later said the video containing the remarks was authentic and showed no indication of editing or manipulation.
After the preliminary investigation, the DOJ prosecution panel found prima facie evidence sufficient to indict Duterte for grave threats, Martinez said.
The finding, Martinez explained, does not mean Duterte has been convicted, saying that it means prosecutors determined that the evidence warranted bringing the case before a court, where the accused will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations and present her defense.
Martinez also drew a distinction between the grave threats case and another complaint involving inciting to sedition, which prosecutors had earlier dismissed for lack of prima facie evidence and reasonable certainty of conviction.
He said the dismissal of the sedition complaint was based on the evidence and the legal elements of that particular offense, stressing that it should not be interpreted as having affected the decision on the grave threats charge.
“It’s not accurate to say that one proceeding affected the other,” Martinez said, emphasizing that each criminal charge is evaluated on its own evidence and legal requirements.
