MANILA, Philippines — The prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has asked judges to admit the previously recorded testimony of a key prosecution witness, saying it could provide evidence on an alleged policy of using violent crimes, including murder, to “neutralize” alleged criminals in the Philippines.
In a Sept. 7 filing, the prosecution asked Trial Chamber III to admit the recorded testimony of the witness, identified as P-1100, under Rule 68(3) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence in the case against former president Rodrigo Duterte.
The prosecution said the testimony is relevant to the alleged policy as well as the alleged modus operandi of the Davao Death Squad (DDS) and Duterte’s individual criminal responsibility, including his alleged knowledge and intent.
Much of the witness’s identity and evidence remain redacted in the public version of the filing. The prosecution did not disclose his name or background.
The lack of identification has fueled questions about whether P-1100 could be among individuals who have previously given public accounts of the alleged DDS, including self-confessed former DDS members Edgar Matobato and Arturo Lascañas, as well as retired police officer Cezar Mancao.
Matobato and Lascañas have previously been described as potential insider witnesses in the ICC case. ICC assistant to counsel Kristina Conti said in 2025 that the two could provide testimony concerning the planning, implementation and participants in alleged DDS operations.
The prosecution said P-1100’s prior recorded testimony consists of a witness statement and associated material that he used or explained in his statement. It said the evidence relates to the alleged policy of neutralizing criminals through violent crimes and provides evidence on the alleged DDS modus operandi and Duterte’s individual criminal responsibility.
The prosecution also asked permission to conduct a limited, focused supplementary examination of P-1100 if the testimony is admitted.
Under the proposal, the prosecution would need about two hours to examine the witness in court, compared with an estimated seven hours for a full direct examination if his prior testimony is not admitted. The prosecution said this would save at least five hours of court time.
The prosecution argued that the admission of the prior testimony would not prejudice Duterte’s rights because P-1100 would be present in court and available for cross-examination by the defense.
The witness would also be available for questioning by the Chamber, the parties and the Common Legal Representatives of Victims.
