Rodrigo Duterte defense team wants ICC prosecution witnesses vs Bato dela Rosa removed

Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.

PRAGUE, Czech Republic – The defense team of former President Rodrigo Duterte has pushed back at International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutors over their bid to include two witness testimonies whose accounts they allege to be based on “rumors, hearsay, and information obtained through media.”

In a redacted request filing released on November 9, Duterte’s counsel Peter Haynes asks Trial Chamber III to order the Office of the Prosecutor to remove P-1334 and P-1348 from its list of witnesses.

Haynes argued that the two witnesses – whose prior recorded testimonies are sought by prosecutors to be admitted in court under Rule 68(2)(b) – were “both absent for almost the entire period charged under Counts 2 and 3.”

“Accordingly, they can have almost no direct knowledge of how decisions were taken [REDACTED] or how operations were conducted during Mr Duterte’s presidency,” Haynes stated in the filing.

Striking out witnesses vs. Bato, alleged killing quotas

On October 26, Acting Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang requested Trial Chamber III to admit the prior recorded testimonies and associated material from P-1334 and P-1348, whose evidence implicates former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief and incumbent Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa.

Their statements also allegedly mention “target lists of drug personalities” and “killing quotas and financial rewards” as well as establishing the roles in implementing Duterte’s drug war.

In the prosecution’s filing, P-1334’s evidence also relates to Incident 13 – or the shootout that killed former Albuera mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr., and Raul Yap, and Incident 53 – or the killing of an alleged drug pusher and another victim by PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Group (AIDG) operatives.

Duterte’s defense rejected the prosecution’s assertion, saying the accounts of P-1334 and P-1348 were “substantially based on rumour, hearsay, and information obtained through the media.”

“She never saw Dela Rosa do anything of the sort, and recognized that her account is based on stories she had heard,” Haynes argued, citing the prosecution’s transcripts that currently remain unavailable to the public.

Stating several other reasons, whose substance remains obscured, Haynes said P-1334’s understanding of the alleged murder in Incident 53 is “limited”, and that claims she knew about Incident 13 “[come] entirely from newspapers or ‘people talking’.”

For P-1348, Duterte’s defense argued the witness’s prior recorded testimony lacks probative value, “given her inability to offer any direct information on matters of significance to the case.”

Haynes pointed out that P-1348 “cannot speak from personal experience” on the alleged killing quotas, and that “she accepted that her account is based entirely on hearsay.”

“In addition, her evidence appears to have been shaped by information obtained from news reports and social media concerning the nanlaban narrative, rather than by any direct familiarity with the events.”

Testimonies of “marginal value”

While Duterte’s lawyers “take no position” in the prosecution’s request to admit P-1334 and P-1348 under Rule 68(2)(b), they hit back at the opposing camp over introducing what they describe as “prior recorded testimonies of marginal value”.

“[These are] concerning matters said to support the contextual elements, but resting on a fragmented and increasingly attenuated chain of hearsay from unidentified individuals, ‘stories’, press articles and, more seriously, speculation,” Haynes said.

Other than asking Trial Chamber III to remove P-1334 and P-1348 from the list of witnesses, Haynes requested the court to admit only “those parts of the statements that relate to proof of matters other than the acts and conduct of the accused.”

He stated that “no reliance should be placed” on the prosecution’s application to include testimonies related to the following:

• Duterte’s association with the Davao Death Squad (DDS) and drug cartels;
• his alleged “targeting of mayors [REDACTED] who did not support him”;
• his use of public funds to pay [REDACTED]; and
• his public call for drug users to register in barangays.

Haynes’ recent filing is the latest bid by Duterte’s defense to strike out several prior recorded testimonies applied for by the prosecution under Rule 68(2)(b). The prosecution is seeking to admit these in court without the presence of witnesses.

So far, Trial Chamber III has not released a decision on the three prosecution applications.

Duterte is facing three counts of crimes against humanity and will face trial before the ICC on November 30, 2026. — BAP, GMA News