00:00I will try to avoid making conclusions of fact and lawyer honor, but I will answer in light of the
00:07facts of this case and leave it up to the discretion of this honorable court.
00:12It is our position that the statements made by the Vice President were not threats in the first place. That's
00:23why we were categorizing it as a mere response to a Q&A, number one.
00:34Number two, it was never aimed directly at BBM, FL, and the former speaker. In other words, had they not
00:49watched the video, for example, they wouldn't have known about it.
00:54Hmm. So in other words, Your Honor, it is, there was no threats to begin with.
01:11And so even the discussion on the elements is not really applicable insofar as determining the innocence or guilt of
01:24the Vice President.
01:27That is basically our position.
01:29That is one more thing. And practically, we maintain this position all throughout our pleadings.
01:37We never referred to that statement as threats. We always say that if at all, they were alleged threats.
01:46But we referred to the statements of the Vice President as statements, as responses.
01:51And even in my speech, that's what I said. It was a response, Your Honor. That would be all.
01:57So, yeah. Noted, Attorney Lutok, your response to Senator Judge Pia's question based on your investigation.
02:04You may proceed, sir.
02:05Yes, Your Honor. In establishing, Your Honor, whether or not the crime of grave threat exists,
02:12we follow the rule. First, whether there is an actus reus, and then second, whether there is a mens rea.
02:24So, actus reus, Your Honor, means whether the offender, in fact, uttered the threatening remarks,
02:32we were able to establish that. That's why inauthenticate po ng NBI yung video na kung saan nando doon yung
02:40utterances.
02:41The test of mens rea, Your Honor, what we did, we interpret the utterances objectively.
02:54And in the light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, in the manner in which those utterances were
03:02spoken,
03:04the person to whom they were addressed, the utterances were addressed, the relationship between the parties,
03:13meaning the offender and the recipients, and then the reactions of the recipients, whether they treat the utterances serious or
03:26real.
03:27But again, I would agree with what Attorney Ligutan said.
03:33In fact, in fact, ang basis po namin dyan, yung Garmac versus people.
03:38Ang isa po doon sa sinabi ng Garmac versus people, hindi ho kailangan na ma-intimidate o itrato ng recipient
03:45na seryoso yung threat na yan.
03:48Ang sufficient na, na maipakita lang, na yun yung intention ng offender na ma-intimidate at i-treat na seryoso
03:57yung utterances or threatening remarks na ginawa niya.
04:00Yun po yung naging basehan po namin, Your Honor.
Comments