Are Duterte’s confessions sufficient to convict him?

After the Senate Blue Ribbon subcommittee investigation in Monday, with former president Rodrigo Duterte as resource person, people from different walks of life expressed various opinions.

Many said that the former president benefited from that hearing because he was once again able to express his love and concern for the country. He stated that the “war on illegal drugs” is not about killing people; rather, it is about protecting the innocent and the defenseless.

Some argue that Duterte should be charged in court based on his admissions during the hearing, as he was under oath. Duterte admitted the following, to wit: first, that he would take full legal responsibility for his war on drugs; second, that he ordered the police to kill the criminals who fought back; third, that he instructed the police to encourage criminals to fight back so they could be killed; and fourth, that he admitted to having a death squad.

With due respect to my fellow lawyers, I would like to share my simple opinion based on our existing laws. Let us examine each point to determine if they are sufficient to convict him should a criminal case be filed. First, it is difficult to hold him liable for taking full-emphasizing the word “legal”-responsibility, because this implies that any excesses committed by abusive policemen, such as those allegedly committed by Police Colonel Royina Garma against General Wesley Barayuga, would not fall under his order.

Second, he cannot be held liable because he qualified his order. While he said that police should kill criminals, he specified that this should occur only when they fight. This falls within the ambit of self-defense for the police officers.

Third, when he said, encourage the criminals to fight back so they could be killed, it resembles reverse psychology. By making such a statement, he may have intended for criminals to peacefully surrender, knowing they could be killed otherwise. In fact, many were not killed because they chose to surrender.

Fourth, his admission about having a death squad was made in a joking manner. Upon serious review, it appears to be a joke. He even told the subcommittee that his police commanders were leaders of the death squad, a claim the latter subsequently denied.

However, if some consider such admission to be a big deal, then so be it. It is important to remember that the quantum of evidence required for a criminal case is “beyond reasonable doubt”. The question is: can such extrajudicial confessions hold up in court? According to the Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, Section 3 states that an extrajudicial confession is not sufficient ground for conviction unless it is corroborated by evidence.

So far, everything that occurred during the Senate hearing is not yet enough to pin Duterte down. There is a need to gather more credible evidence. They should also anticipate that their target has been a prosecutor for almost 10 years. It is important to keep in mind that the Criminal Law, Rules of Court and Rules on Evidence are at his fingertips.

Let us see if the Quad Committee hearing in the Lower House can gather additional evidence against Duterte. For now, they need to restore the credibility that was significantly impacted by the testimony of former Mandaluyong Police Chief Col. Hector Grijaldo, who claimed that he was directed by Congressmen Dan Fernandez and Bienvenido Abante to fabricate a story.