THE International Criminal Court’s Trial Chamber III has allowed prosecutors to use the prior recorded testimony of an unidentified witness, P-1100, in the case against former president Rodrigo Duterte, subject to the witness appearing in court and consenting to the use of the statement.
In a decision dated Oct. 2, the three-judge chamber granted the prosecution’s request under Rule 68(3) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence to introduce P-1100’s written statement as evidence in place of part of his examination-in-chief.
The chamber said using the prior testimony would not prejudice Duterte’s rights because the defense would still have an opportunity to question P-1100 about his evidence, including his knowledge, credibility and the basis of his statements.
Under Rule 68(3), prior recorded testimony may be admitted when the witness is present before the chamber, does not object to its use, and the defense and judges are given an opportunity to examine the witness.
The prosecution said P-1100’s testimony was relevant to allegations that Duterte was involved in a policy to “neutralize” alleged criminals through violent crimes, including murder.
It also said the testimony could shed light on the alleged modus operandi of the Davao Death Squad (DDS) and Duterte’s individual criminal responsibility, including his alleged knowledge and intent.
The public version of the ICC filings does not identify P-1100 by name, with substantial portions concerning his background and evidence redacted.
The redactions have left open questions about whether P-1100 could be among individuals who have previously given public accounts of alleged DDS operations, including self-confessed former members Edgar Matobato and Arturo Lascañas and retired police officer Cezar Mancao.
Matobato and Lascañas have previously been identified as potential insider witnesses in the ICC proceedings.
There is, however, no indication in the public ICC filing that P-1100 is Matobato, Lascañas or Mancao.
The chamber stressed that it would assess P-1100’s testimony based on its evidentiary value and the witness’ personal knowledge.
It noted that portions of the statement contained opinions or conclusions and said the defense could test the basis of those statements during questioning.
The judges also said they would consider the basis of P-1100’s knowledge and the probative value of his testimony when deliberating on the case.
The prosecution had requested two hours for supplementary questioning of P-1100, compared with the seven hours it estimated would be needed for a full examination.
The chamber rejected the two-hour request and ordered prosecutors to complete their questioning within one hour, saying a longer examination would undermine the purpose of Rule 68(3), which is intended to streamline proceedings.
The chamber found that P-1100 had not sufficiently used or explained the four materials in his prior testimony for them to be considered an integral part of his statement.
It allowed five other associated materials, including three reports authored by P-1100 and two other documents, after finding that they formed an integral part of his testimony and were necessary to understand it.
The chamber warned both sides that it would closely scrutinize future requests to introduce evidence, particularly associated materials, to prevent the trial record from becoming overloaded with repetitive or minimally relevant documents.
The judges said the approach was intended to keep the proceedings focused and expeditious while safeguarding the rights of the accused.
