The defense of former president Rodrigo Duterte has asked the International Criminal Court Trial Chamber III to reject a prior statement by a witness who allegedly has knowledge of the “neutralization policy” and the modus operandi of the Davao Death Squad.
In a redacted filing dated Sept. 22, lead defense counsel Peter Haynes argued that the knowledge of the witness, identified only as P-1100, predates the period covered by the charges against Duterte—from Nov. 1, 2011, to March 16, 2019.
The Davao Death Squad refers to an alleged vigilante group accused of carrying out extrajudicial killings when Duterte was mayor of Davao City.
“P-1100’s account of earlier circumstances cannot, by virtue of [REDACTED] alone, establish how those circumstances subsequently developed or support conclusions about conduct beyond his own observation,” the defense said.
The defense also questioned the witness’ personal basis for interpreting the term “neutralize” and explaining how Philippine police officers allegedly understand it.
Haynes pointed to paragraph 117 of P-1100’s statement, saying the witness did not identify a clear basis in his personal knowledge for such claims.
Defense challenges link to Duterte-era killings
The defense further argued that P-1100 linked alleged killings in 2009 to those committed during Duterte’s presidency in 2016 without identifying anything the witness personally observed or any direct knowledge supporting the connection.
“While the prosecution asserts that P-1100 can provide evidence of the DDS’s modus operandi, his evidence shows that he had no personal knowledge of this modus operandi, or the structure, operations, hierarchy, or command of any such group,” the filing said.
The defense also challenged the admission of documents that P-1100 allegedly used or explained in his testimony, saying they did not meet the requirements under Rule 68(3) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Rule 68(3) permits recorded testimony to be used in certain circumstances when a witness is present at trial for cross-examination. The defense, however, objected to its application to P-1100’s testimony.
“Referring to the existence of these documents does not show that the witness ‘used and explained’ them so that they became an integral part of his prior testimony,” the defense said.
“It cannot be that a witness [REDACTED] acts as a vehicle for their automatic admission,” it added.
The filing responded to the prosecution’s Sept. 8 application to admit P-1100’s written statement, which prosecutors said was relevant to establishing an alleged policy of “neutralizing” suspected criminals through violent crimes, including murder.
Prosecution seeks shorter direct examination
The prosecution said admission of the recorded testimony would cut P-1100’s expected direct examination from seven hours to two.
The defense urged Trial Chamber III to deny the application, arguing that the proposed evidence was not sufficiently relevant or probative of the issues in dispute.
“The defense respectfully requests that the Trial Chamber reject the prosecution’s application on the basis that P-1100’s proposed evidence is not sufficiently relevant or probative of the matters in dispute in this case,” it said.
It also asked the chamber, alternatively, to reject the admission of four prosecution documents under Rule 68(3).
Duterte’s trial is scheduled to begin on Nov. 30 on crimes against humanity charges arising from thousands of killings linked to his antidrug campaign when he was Davao City mayor and later president.
