NBI files grave threats, sedition charges vs. VP Sara

Vice President Sara Duterte (PNA photo by Joan Bondoc)

By Benjamin Pulta, Philippine News Agency

MANILA – The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on Wednesday filed grave threats and inciting to sedition charges against Vice President Sara Duterte before the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a press briefing, NBI Director Jaime Santiago said the cases were filed in connection with Duterte’s previous remarks that she hired someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and House Speaker Martin Romualdez if the supposed assassination plot against her were to succeed.

Santiago said the recommendation for the filing of the case came after a thorough evaluation, even as Duterte skipped two invitations from the NBI to attend the investigation in November and December last year.

He said it will be up to the vice president to opt to answer the charges before the prosecutors who will decide whether to file cases before the courts.

“Depende po sa prosecutor’s office, kung gusto niya magpunta, kung hindi, nasa kanya po yun (It depends on the proceedings at the prosecutor’s office, whether she wants to go or not will be up to her),” Santiago said.

“All cases filed by law enforcement officers shall be filed before the prosecutor’s office, and the prosecutor’s office shall conduct a preliminary investigation whether to file or not. They may decide to summon VP Sara or witnesses.”

The NBI chief said this is in line with a recent directive requiring prosecutors to pursue only charges that have a reasonable degree of likelihood to result in conviction.

Santiago also admitted that they have yet to identify the supposed assassin.

Meanwhile, Chief State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadullon said the National Prosecution Service would be evaluating the complaint.

“Pending the results of the evaluation, we cannot say anything more for now in order not to preempt the results and prejudice the rights of any party,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said under Department Circular No. 20, the investigating prosecutors must determine whether based on the evidence, there is a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction.

“A prima facie case is established by such evidence which if left uncontroverted, shall be sufficient to establish all the elements of the crime. The process will undergo case build up as needed to assure that there is sufficient evidence and that the respondent is not unduly haled to court,” the DOJ said in a statement.

It said the process involves requiring the respondent to submit a counter-affidavit, reviewing the evidence from both parties, and assessing whether the case meets the higher threshold of evidence for filing in court, or whether the case should be dismissed for lack of evidence.

“The crime of Grave Threats penalizes statements that create real and imminent danger to specific persons, regardless of whether actual harm occurs. The Supreme Court has ruled that what matters is the intent behind the words — whether they were meant to convey a serious threat or instill fear. It is not necessary that the recipient actually feels intimidated or takes the words seriously; what is crucial is that the statement was made with the purpose of creating intimidation or fear. This is what the prosecutors will evaluate based on the evidence presented,” the DOJ explained.

On the other hand, the DOJ said the crime of inciting to sedition penalizes statements that pose a real and imminent threat to public order, regardless of whether actual unrest occurs.

“While freedom of speech is protected, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does not extend to speech that incites violence, rebellion, or disorder. The law does not require that an unlawful act be carried out — only that the statement was made with the intent to stir public unrest or disrupt stability. This is what the prosecutors will evaluate based on the evidence presented.”

The DOJ assured that it remains committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that due process is strictly followed in all legal proceedings.