The criminal case against Vice President Sara Duterte over alleged grave threats can proceed independently of any impeachment proceedings, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said, stressing that the two processes follow separate legal tracks.
In an interview after the first court setting of the grave threats case against Duterte, DOJ spokesperson Atty. Polo Martinez said an impeachment proceeding does not bar a parallel criminal trial.
‘It does not mean that while the impeachment proceeding is ongoing, there will be no criminal proceeding,’ he added, explaining why the state pushed forward with the indictment against the sitting vice president.
Responding to queries about whether the impeachment trial could raise the issue of double jeopardy, Martinez said the two proceedings have separate tracks and ends.
‘The prosecution, of course, in filing it, believes that impeachment and the criminal proceeding are two different and distinct proceedings,’ he added. ‘They run on separate tracks, towards separate purposes, and towards separate ends.’
An impeachment is a political and administrative process conducted by a legislature to determine if a high-ranking official should be removed from office and disqualified from future public posts.
On the other hand, a criminal proceeding is a judicial process conducted by a court of law to determine an individual’s guilt regarding specific statutory crimes, carrying legal penalties such as imprisonment, fines, or probation.
Martinez maintained that the prosecution established that the case met the threshold of prima facie evidence with a reasonable certainty of conviction.
‘We are consistent in saying that there’s prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction to charge the vice president for grave threats,’ Martinez said.
‘It is the prosecution’s mandate to proceed with the criminal prosecution for grave threats if we see that there is evidence that satisfies the elements of the crime,’ he added.
While the prosecution said it is ready to try the case, the immediate future of the proceedings now rests with the trial court judge after the defense’s attempt to dismiss the charges.
The defense team has filed a Motion to Quash the three counts of grave threats, which the prosecution has formally opposed on specific legal grounds.
‘The Motion to Quash was filed by the defense. So, of course, it will be up to the judge to decide whether to grant or deny the Motion to Quash,’ Martinez explained, declining to speculate on the eventual outcome.
‘Our position is that, of course, we opposed the Motion to Quash … on specific grounds under the law,’ he added.
Meanwhile, the defense team has maintained that the case should be dismissed because impeachable officers are entitled to a certain degree of immunity.
‘As I mentioned in previous statements, there is a certain immunity ang mga impeachable officers. They should not be charged, but if they are, it should be after their term of office. This does not mean that they should not be charged; what we are saying is, not until the end of their term,’ Duterte’s lawyer Paul Lawrence Lim said.
The complaint for grave threats was filed against Duterte over her controversial remark against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Lisa Araneta Marcos, and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
It is also the same matter raised in the impeachment proceedings against Duterte.
Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon earlier said the DOJ believed that nothing bars the filing of criminal cases against Duterte.