Prosecution maintains Lascañas had to lie as he was under duress

Retired police officer Arturo Lascañas. Screenshot from Online press conference. MANILA, Philippines — Members of the prosecution panel for Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial have maintained that former police officer Arturo Lascañas’ changing testimonies regarding the drug war does not mean it can be discredited or junked, noting that he had a pressing reason why he needed to lie. During an online press briefing on Friday, counsel for prosecution Benjamin Tolosa Jr., and prosecution spokesperson Robert Ace Barbers explained that Lascañas was being coached and was under duress when he made his first affidavit before the Senate. Lascañas, a key figure in investigations against Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, initially denied the existence of the Davao Death Squad (DDS), the vigilante group doing summary executions of drug suspects. But in 2017, Lascañas recanted his testimony, saying that the DDS existed — and that he had to lie to protect his family. Article continues after this advertisement READ: Matibag reminded: Leave rulings to Senate impeachment court Now, nine years later, Lascañas’ testimony was brought up during the younger Duterte’s impeachment trial as it was used by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to establish whether the Vice President had the capacity to carry out her threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his relatives. “If we will examine the statement from Mr. Lascañas, why his statement had been changing, he has a reason why he did it. It does not mean that if a person’s statement changes, if a person recants, the testimony can no longer be credible,” Tolosa said. “It seems that he has an explanation as to why his statement changed — because he said that during the time that he attended the hearings before the Senate, that he was coached, instructed to deny all the allegations about the Davao Death Squad,” he added. Barbers said that Lascañas basically admitted that he made a false testimony because he was being pressured to do so. Article continues after this advertisement “What Atty. Jay (Tolosa) said is correct, changing testimonies or affidavits made by a witness does not automatically mean that what he said has no weight or value anymore. Remember in his second affidavit, Arturo Lascañas mentioned there that he was somehow under duress, because he was coached,” Barbers noted. “He was instructed to say things, et cetera, until maybe his conscience bothered him, maybe he felt that — if I am not mistaken — after he got sick he suddenly wanted to say the truth. To my belief, I don’t know if Atty. Jay will agree with me, this is admission against interest,” he added. Article continues after this advertisement Both Tolosa and Barbers clarified that the prosecution is not presenting Lascañas — rather, his name was only brought up because his statements were used by Matibag to establish Duterte’s alleged propensity for violence. “But again to be fair, I will say it again, the statements of Mr. Lascañas as we said, we were not presenting them to prove the truth of these statements because Mr. Lascañas is not here. To be accurate, again the purpose why we presented this is just to show what was the basis of the NBI for them to have institutional findings,” Tolosa said. “Let’s not look at the affidavit as the only evidence presented by the NBI because this is only part of a body of evidence that our impeachment court has to balance and evaluate. Again, ultimately, the one that will decide whether the evidence is admissible or not is our impeachment court, and that is where they will decide, based on the facts or the evidence laid down by the prosecution,” Barbers added. Lascañas’ affidavit became a key topic during the ninth day of the impeachment trial. At one point, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan asked Matibag whether Matibag used Lascañas’ affidavit without even issuing a subpoena for him to verify the claims. In response, Matibag said that they did not subpoena Lascañas, but they pursued a verification process. Lascañas’ name was mentioned once again when Senator-judge Robin Padilla and Senator-judge Pia Cayetano questioned why the prosecution was using the ex-police officer. READ: Lascañas’ EJK claims against Sara Duterte The prosecution rested its case regarding Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, or the allegation that deals with Duterte’s threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former House of Representatives Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez on November 23, 2024. The threats came while Duterte criticized the House for detaining her chief-of-staff, Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, who was cited for contempt by a panel probing confidential fund misuse within the Vice President’s offices. During the online briefing, Duterte was asked by a vlogger to take care as she may be in danger. The Vice President replied by urging people not to worry as she has talked to a person about killing the Marcos couple and Romualdez if she herself gets killed. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. Your subscription has been successful. The defense panel has maintained that Duterte’s statements were part of free speech, but several government officials and the prosecution team believe it was a grave threat — regardless of whether or not the Vice President executed a contract with an assassin to kill the three. /mr