Pinoy Street lawyer Danielito “DJ” Jimenez said he does not expect the grave threats case against Vice President Sara Duterte to result in a conviction unless President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, or former House Speaker Martin Romualdez testifies in court.
“If none of them testifies, I don’t think the case will end in any conviction,” Jimenez said during an interview on Bilyonaryo News Channel’s At The Forefront with Atty. Karen Jimeno.
Jimenez said the prosecution would have difficulty establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt without testimony from the alleged victims in the three counts of grave threats filed against Duterte.
He noted that he had not seen affidavits submitted by Marcos, the First Lady or Romualdez in connection with the case.
“Parang wala naman akong nabalitaan affidavits that were submitted by the President, by the Speaker and the First Lady,” Jimenez said.
“So I was thinking na in the absence of any testimony coming from the supposed private victims themselves, it would be hard to establish at least the reasonable certainty of conviction in that level,” he added.
Jimenez said the Department of Justice may have relied on open-source documents and other evidence, including a video of Marcos expressing his disapproval of the alleged incident, in finding a prima facie case with evidence of reasonable certainty of conviction.
“But pag dating nito sa trial on the merits, yan yung abangan natin,” he said.
Jimenez explained that the requirements for affidavits may differ depending on where and how the offense was allegedly committed.
“Ordinarily if this was filed in the MTC, the complaining witnesses or at least the private parties, the victims are required to submit a judicial affidavit,” he said.
“But since this was supposed to be committed through the use of information technology, then sa RTC hindi required yung affidavit,” he added.
Jimenez also distinguished the standard used in determining probable cause from the higher burden of proof required during trial.
“Or kung matutuloy naman, abangan natin. Iba naman yung thresholds sa proof beyond reasonable doubt,” he said.#