
02/14/2025
NBI FILES GRAVE THREAT, SEDITION RAPS VS SARA
‘It’s expected,’ says VP; lawyers question charges
By ALFRED GABOT and CLAIRE MORALES TRUE
Editor in Chief and Managing Editor
MANILA – The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has added to the legal woes confronting Vice President Sara Duterte as it filed on February 12 grave threats and inciting to sedition charges against her before the Department of Justice (DOJ) over her alleged assassination threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Lisa A. Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Duterte, who is a subject of an impeachment complaint filed by over 200 members of the House of Representatives before the Senate, said the criminal complaint which is yet to be evaluated in a preliminary investigation by Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon if it is forwarded or not to the appropriate court “was expected.” Duterte earlier said that she did not expect fairness from the agency.
Asked for comment Senate President Francis Escudero said that the NBI’s filing of inciting to sedition and grave threats charges has no impact on the impending impeachment proceedings against the Vice President.
“No, that has no bearing on the impending impeachment proceedings – none at all. In fact, it can proceed simultaneously, precede, or follow. It has no relevance to the impeachment process that will be conducted by the Senate,” Escudero told Senate reporters.
NBI Director Jaime Santiago said the cases were filed in connection with Duterte’s earlier remarks that she hired someone to kill President Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and House Speaker Romualdez if the supposed assassination plot against her were to succeed.
Duterte earlier denied that her statement on the President, First Lady and Speaker amounted to a threat.
“Common sense should be enough for us to understand and accept that a supposed conditional act of revenge does not constitute an active threat,” she said.
The alleged grave threats were cited as one of the bases of the impeachment complaint against her and labeled as “culpable violation of the Constitution” in the seven Articles of Impeachment that were submitted to the Senate before it went into a break for the election period.
Several lawyers led by former Presidential Legal Counsel and Spokesman Salvador Panelo twitted the NBi Director, saying the NBI recommendation to file criminal charges opf grave threats and inciting to sedition against Duterte “has no basis in fact and in law.”
Panelo said the NBI actipn is “obviously tainted with politics and part of a demolition job to put the Vice Presidentt out of the 2028 presidential race.
Panelo said there can be no crime of a “threat from the grave,” adding “Neither has VP Sara publicly and tumultuously incited the people to perform acts of sedition as defined by law or to go against the constituted authorities or to stop the enforcement of laws.”
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.
Santiago said a six-man investigating panel, including him, unanimously agreed that Duterte is liable for inciting sedition and committing grave threats against the President, First Lady Liza Marcos and Speaker Romualdez during an online press conference on Nov. 23, 2024.
“Our lawyers and myself weighed in on the case and we are one in our findings: our decision is to file a case against the Vice President,” Santiago added.
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.
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.
According to Santiago, the penalty for grave threats depends on the crime that was threatened to be committed. The penalty is one degree lower if the threat was fulfilled, while it will be two degrees lower if it was not fulfilled.
In the case of Duterte, Santiago said she threatened to commit murder, which carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua up to 40 years in prison.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the next penalties are reclusion temporal (12 years and one day to 20 years) and prision mayor (six years and one day to 12 years).
And while Duterte’s supposed threats were not fulfilled, meaning the penalty if convicted is prision mayor, Santiago noted that the act was committed online.
Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, penalties for crimes committed online will receive a penalty one degree higher than that stipulated in the Revised Penal Code, or back to reclusion temporal for Duterte if convicted.
Santiago, however, admitted that it remains unclear if a sitting Vice President can be imprisoned while in office. Under the Constitution, the Vice President may only be removed from office through impeachment.
“We don’t have jurisprudence that we can follow regarding that. This is the first time that a vice president was charged,” the NBI director said. “We’ll just cross the bridge when we get there.”
NBI DIRECTOR Jaime Santiago in his office. At right is file photo of Vice President Sara Duterte attending a House of Representatives hearing