July 14, 2026

The Senate President, the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court, and the Senator-Judges.

The Sgt. at Arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Impeachment Court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

The Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator Judge Christopher Bongo.

Almighty and loving God, O Allah, we come before you today with humility, mindful of the solemn duty entrusted to us and the weight of the decisions that lie ahead. Grant us wisdom to discern what is right, courage to uphold the truth and fairness in every judgment we make. Keep us from prejudice, Anger, personal interest, and political pressure. Help us listen with patience, speak with honesty, and act according to conscience, the Constitution, and the welfare of the Filipino people. Gabayanin niyo kaming lahat ng may tungkulin sa mga pagdinig na ito, naway ang bawat panig ay mabigyan ng pagkakataong marinig, ang bawat ebedensya ay mapag-aralang mabuti, at ang bawat pasya Ay nakabatay sa katotohanan, katarungan at tamang proseso. Remind us that public office is a sacred trust. May we never lose sight of the people whose lives are affected by our words, our actions, and our decisions. Let the pursuit of truth strengthen our institutions and deepen our commitment to serve with integrity and compassion.

Lord, bring healing to our nation. Where there is division, grant us understanding, patience, and unity. Where there is distrust, restore faith. Where there is fear and anger, give us calmness and restraint. When these proceedings are concluded, help us move forward together, naway makabalik na kami sa aming pangunahing tungkulin. Ang magservisyo at maglingkod sa ating mga kababayan. Now ay maitoon naming muli ang aming buong pansin sa paglilingkod sa ating mga kababayan lalo na sa mga higit na nangangailangan. Lastly, may the Philippine Senate remain united in fulfilling its role as the last bastion of democracy. Within these halls, may truth prevail and the true voice of the Filipinos be heard.

May compassion for others be a steadfast virtue. We live by in our words and in our actions. And may we, your senator judges, be instruments of your grace in the pursuit of peace, justice, and the common good. All this we ask in your holy name. Amen.

The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Call of members. Senator-Judge Aquino; Senator-Judge Cayetano, Alan; Senator-Judge Cayetano, Pia; Senator-Judge Dela Rosa; Senator-Judge Ejercito; Senator-Judge Estrada; Senator-Judge Go; Senator-Judge Hontiveros; Senator-Judge Lacson; Senator-Judge Lapid; Senator-Judge Legarda; Senator-Judge Marcoleta; Senator-Judge Marcos; Senator-Judge Padilla; Senator-Judge Pangilinan; Senator-Judge Sotto III; Senator-Judge Tulfo, Erwin; Senator-Judge Tulfo, Raffy; Senator-Judge Villanueva; Senator-Judge Villar, Camille; Senator-Judge Villar, Mark; Senator-Judge Zubiri;

Presiding Officer Senator-Judge Escudero; Senate President Gatchalian.

With 19 senators present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum.

With the permission of the body, if there are no objections, we dispense with the reading of the July 13, 2026 Journal of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court

and shall consider the same as approved.

The clerk will please call the case before the impeachment court.

Case number 0042026 in the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Sarah Zimmerman Duterte.

Appearances for

the prosecution.

Good afternoon, your honors.

Respect. Same appearance for the prosecution. We are ready, Your Honor.

For the respondent.

Good afternoon, your honors. Same appearance for the defense.

I see that Atty. Lotoc is already situated in the witness stand.

To remind you, Atty. Lotoc, you shall continue with your testimony and be subjected to the continuation of cross-examination of counsel for respondent and shall be answering under the same oath that you took yesterday. Is that clear, sir?

Yes, Your Honor.

Respondent counsel, may now continue with this cross-examination. Atty. Pinduan, you are recognized and may proceed whenever you are recognized.

Your Honor, before we proceed, may I request that counsel for the panel of prosecutors, Atty. Virgil D. Ligutan, be recognized once more for the examination of our second witness.

Counsel for the prosecutors, Atty. Ligutan is recognized on the part of the panel of prosecutors. Again, to reiterate, Atty. Vinluan, when you are ready, you may proceed with the continuation of your cross-examination of the witness, Atty. Lotoc.

Good afternoon, Atty. Lotoc.

Good afternoon, sir.

So, yesterday, you identified videos, correct? And specifically portions of the November 23, 2024 press conference? All right. Now, in that press conference, VP Sara spoke about a lot of topics, correct?

In other

words, she

said many statements in that presscon. My question is this, do you know for sure that V.P. Sara's statements during that presscon happened in real life? In real life?

Rejection, Your Honor. Incompetent. The statements happening in real life as to the real life of the Vice President, this witness is being asked that question. Of course, the witness is incompetent, Your Honor, please. Council

kindly reform. It seems the witness did not understand the question.

Let me

help you. I'm showing you also a portion of our exhibit D- 1-145-8 This is the whole version of the video that you, the portions that you identified yesterday. And particularly, I'll show you timestamp 51-07 or colon 07 onwards of the video. In this video, the Vice President mentioned about events that happened inside the Batasang Pambansa. Can we play that video, please?

Dapat sa demokrasya, there's a rule of law. And

then they make rules as they go along.

The speaker, get her out of the House of Representatives. Kasi hindi siya dapat nandiyan. Bakit? Pag mapayari niyo ba itong compound na ito? And sasabihin pa nila sa akin that there is a threat to my life inside the... Patasang pambansa? Why is there a threat to my life?

All right. My question to you is this.

Your Honor, point of clarification, if I may, please.

for the prosecutor is recognized.

Your Honor, there is a video that is marked in evidence capturing the events on November 23, 2024. And here we have the defense.

Your Honor, may we just do an objection, Your Honor? Wait, wait, I'm explaining. This is not the time for lecture, Your Honor. Counsel,

I have not yet recognized you. Let counsel for the prosecutor finish.

Point of clarification, they are presenting a video with anecdotes. I'm now questioning the propriety of the defense presenting a video without laying the basis where this video came from. Who is the source of those annotations there too? Because, Your Honor, there's a video. They're confronting this witness with that video by presenting their own annotated, it's like a props, Your Honor, please. This is highly irregular

in the court of law. Counsel for the respondent, is this the video previously marked in evidence? Your Honor,

as I mentioned, we marked it in evidence as D-4-3, Your Honor. And this was also marked by the prosecution as their own. They have a separate marking for this, Your Honor.

This is part of the two-hour and so-and-so minute video?

Correct, Your Honor. At any rate, Your

Honor, if I may be allowed to finish... Counsel for the

Prosecutor, kindly hold on. At

any rate, Your

Honor... Council for

the Respondent.

The chair is not yet done. And the annotation below the video, is that part of the marked video?

This is part, Your Honor, of a separate exhibit that is also part of the Articles of Impeachment Annex G., Your Honor. This is Mr. Kalilong's own transcription of the video. Just to be clarified. But who put it there? We just placed it there, Your Honor. So we will... We're making him identify actually the video as well as the appropriate transcription which are both part of the Articles of Impeachment and Annex G-9. So the question is, can you confirm for certain that these statements or any part thereof happened in real

life? Can you give me the timestamp, Your Honor?

Timestamp 51:07. Your Honor, if I may refer to my notes.

You may do so, sir.

Anong timestamp, sir?

51:07.

To help this Honorable Court, Your Honor, it appears on page 84, more or less, of the Articles of Impeachment, Annex G-9, Your Honor. This is the transcription of Agent John Mark Kalilong dated December 26, 2024.

For the record, Your Honor.

Noted.

Puwede kong patingin na lang?

51:07.

Show it.

Your Honor, in the interest of time, can we confront the witness with our own copy?

Your own copy of what, Counsel? Of

the Articles of Impeachment, Annex G. Niner. Well,

Counsel, Assisting Counsel for the Prosecutor is there. If in case there are any problems, kindly confirm. If indeed, that is the document being shown to the witness.

Page 14. That is page 14 of the affidavit of transcription. Page 14.

Your Honor, I manifest that we are showing that specific portion on the transcript prepared by Agent Kalilong of the NBI.

But actually, Your Honor, even without consultation, With the transcript, my answer is very simple. I'm just asking your honor. My question, I'm sorry, is very simple. My only question is, does he know for certain that these statements or any part of these statements happened in real life?

So do

you confirm that the statements were made by the Vice President, Mr. Witness?

It's here in the transcription, Your Honor, yes.

No, no, no. My question is not whether she made the statement. My question is if you know, based on your personal knowledge, if any statement or a portion thereof happened in real life. That's the question.

Well, Your Honor, the fact that we have the video on November 26 when the Vice President reiterated. What she uttered in November 23, 2024. At the same time, Your Honor, may we allow

the witness to answer?

Your Honor, we invited the media personalities who have personal knowledge on that date and on that online press conference. And nung tinanong namin sila kung nag-participate sila, sabi nila yes, nakausap nila yung vice-presidente, nagbigay sila ng mga katanungan. So definitely yes, nangyari po iyon.

Your Honor, may we make a manifestation?

Yes, Counsel.

Your Honor, it appears that the witness is not being responsive to our question. He's talking about something that I did not ask. We are only focusing on this particular statement. We will show other statements later on. And we cannot get an answer from him. If

he knows. Counsel, Even I am confused with the question happened in real life. I think some of us are too.

I'll be more specific. If the

question is kung alam niyo bang nangyari ito sa totoong buhay, ang sagot ng testigo ay sa pagkakaalam niya ay oo, base sa kanilang investigasyon at sinabi ng mga inimbitahan nilang testigo.

Alright, I'll clarify the question. Alright, in this statement, For example, the vice president said, there were threats to my life inside the Batasang Pambansa. Are you confirming that?

That is within the transcription here, sir.

Now, my question to you is this. Did you investigate those threats to VP Sara's life? I'm not yet done. Did you investigate the threat to VP Sara's life during that time? Objection.

Now, misleading, Your Honor. Because the question was, do you confirm that that statement is found in the transcription? As to the Vice President saying that there were threats to her life. And then the witness said, yes, I confirm that I can find it in the transcription. Now the next question of the good counsel is, so did you investigate the threats? That is the classic misleading question. Can we

get the ruling, Your Honor?

He's a lawyer. Atty. Lotoc is a lawyer and he knows exactly what's going on. Atty. Lotoc, kindly answer?

Yes, Your Honor. What's your answer?

What's the question, sir?

The question is, she mentioned there about the threats to his life. My question is simple. Did you investigate the threats to VP Sara's life during that time? You mean during the live stream, sir? During that time, correct. During that live stream. She mentioned that there were threats to her life.

Well, based on our investigation, nangyari yung live stream. Between 11 p.m. 22 to 1 a.m. 23. And then nalaman namin nung kumalat siya sa social media nung mga hapon na, kaya nag-start kami ng investigation. At that time, hindi pa namin alam yung buong laman ng video na yan kasi nag-start pa lang kami. So I instructed Agent Kalilong na siya maging agent on case. And then kunin niya yung video, the whole video para sa authentication. Atty. Lutong, kindly

answer the question directly. So I get from your long answer that the answer is no?

Specifically at that live stream moment, no, sir. Hindi pa namin

alamin. That was the

question of Atty. Vinluan, if you investigated at that time. So the answer is no?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Please

proceed. But later on, you said you did an investigation. So are you admitting that there were threats to the life of VP Sara?

Precisely, that's the reason why we sent a December 2, 2024 letter for VP Sara to shed light on our investigation.

Alright, I'll move on to a different part of the video. On page also of Exhibit D-1-145-A, this now pertains to timestamp 5930 onwards of the video recording.

So page 15 of the affidavit of transcription, also by Agent Calilung of the NBI, dated December 26, 2024. Can we show that video and then provide the appropriate transcript? Can you play that again, please?

Iyong Speaker mo, pinabayaan mong sayangin ang pera ng bayan. Paikot-ikot sa buong bansa, namimigay ng pera na parang kaniya iyong pera. E ba nga lagi ninyong sinasabi, separation of powers? Anong trabaho ng legislative branch? Gumawa ng batas.

Anong ginagawa ni Martin Romualdez? Namimigay ng ayuda.

Nagsasabi kung anong ibibigay, anong gagawin, sino ba ang—

All right. So my question to you is this. Having watched that video and read the transcript,

my question is very simple: do you know for sure if this statement by the Vice President, or any part thereof, happened in real life?

Well, Your Honor, as I've said, I've answered it already. Noong inimbestigahan namin iyan, iyong video—

no answer will suffice, Your Honor.

Kindly answer more directly to save on the Court's time, Atty. Lotoc.

Your Honor, based on our investigation, yes, it happens in the natural order of things. Nangyari talaga yan.

So in other words, you're admitting that Martin Romualdez goes around the country to distribute

money? I'm saying, nangyari ho iyong utterances na iyan.

That's not my question. That's precisely my point. I'm not asking if she made the statements. I'm asking if the truth of these statements you have personal knowledge of. So be more direct in your answer. That's why I

have to object now, Your Honor, now. There are several statements made and then the witness is being asked, do you confirm the statements? Compound question. Exactly. That's the reason why we don't allow. There are so many statements. O sinasabi gumawa ng batas. So siguro yung tanong is, did this happen in real life? So this witness being confronted with several statements and he is being asked to answer a yes or no. That's why it's compound question.

Your Honor, my question is the statements or any part thereof, Your Honor. The witness is smart enough to answer. He can just clarify.

The objection is sustained but not on that ground but rather on the ground that the witness is incompetent to testify as to the truth of the matter stated by the Vice President. He can only testify as to the fact that those statements were made only as to tenor but not as to the truth given that he only investigated and was not there. You may proceed, Counsel.

In that case, Your Honor, if we confront also Just a manifestation, Your Honor. Yes, you may proceed. In other words, Your Honor, we would like to manifest, Your Honor, based on that ruling of the Court, that even if VP Sara said that she already talked to a person, then we cannot confirm the truth because this witness does not have personal knowledge. That's a conclusion, objection. That's just a manifestation for the Court's appreciation. Can I just

proceed with my next question, Your Honor? Can I counter

-manifestation, Your Honor, please? Counter-manifestation, please. To put into record, Your Honor, please.

For about 15 seconds, counsel, yes. Okay,

The defense is entitled to their own conception of things. They're entitled to their own imagination. That's all.

Counsel may proceed with his cross.

Just to belabor this point, Your Honor. Annex D-1-145-A. Anyway, Your Honor, they showed around seven to eight videos yesterday, so we'll show about four. This pertains to timestamp 1:08:58. And we will also present page 17 of the affidavit of transcription, also by Agent Calilung, dated December 26, 2024. In this video clip, the Vice President mentioned the former Speaker of the House and the confidential funds of the Office of the President. Can we play that video?

Hindi ka dumadaan ng contest, eh, kasi wala kang kalaban sa Tacloban. Binibili mo, pinapa-kidnap mo, pinapatay mo ang mga kalaban mo. Hindi ka dumaan ng contest. Alam mo lang, 'Bibilhin ko lahat ng tao.' You think money is everything. That is nothing new. It's money. Iyan naman iyong katotohanan. Walang presidente man, Vice President man. [unclear] Hindi ko nga alam kung mananalo ka pa ngayon sa Tacloban. Hindi na. Gusto mo sa lahat, sa buong Pilipinas, ibalik ka sa Kongreso? Hindi lahat ng tao pupunta riyan doon sa Tacloban. [unclear] Kayo, dumadaan sa [unclear] certification lang, congressman. One million, two million, pirma lang. Alam mo ba bakit alam ko? Kasi may confi din ako. Ako, sa DepEd, may confi ako sa OVP. Sa amin, nire-require ako ng resibo. Alam ko certification lang ang [unclear], pero nagko-comply ako. Bigay lahat ng resibo. Ikaw, confi mo lang. Hindi mo nga ata pirma; pirma lang ng staff mo iyan, eh. [unclear] Lumalabas pera. Pirma ninyo lang. Confidential funds, Office of the President, iyong Speaker. Hindi ko nasabing kriminal siya. Tingnan ninyo iyong kaso niya sa United States of America.

All right. Again, my question based on this video is very simple, and this pertains to Martin Romualdez and the President.

Can you confirm, or do you know for sure, that these statements about Martin Romualdez or the President are true?

Okay. Your Honor, I will object on the same ground, and I hope the Presiding Officer will make the same ruling.

This witness is incompetent. I know what the defense is doing,

Your Honor.

Objection. Incompetent. This witness is highly incompetent

as to whether he knows whether those statements are in fact

happening. What's the

ground for the objection? Can we just be informed of the ground for the objection? I just said it. Incompetent. This witness is incompetent.

Can we get the ruling, Your Honor?

The Chair made an earlier ruling already. The witness is incompetent to testify as to the truth of the matter. But since, Atty. Lotoc, you're a

lawyer, I will... Give it this time to the Council for the Respondents. Kindly respond. Since you're a

lawyer, you should know the proper answer to this question. Kindly respond to the

question of Council for the Respondents.

Again, I do not know personally about the factual circumstances. What I know is that she uttered those statements.

We're satisfied with that answer, Your Honor. One last video. One last video. On page 87 of the Articles of Impeachment, Annex G. 9, this is timestamp 1-12-43. This is quite a lengthy video, but not as lengthy. But this is our last video, so we beg the court's indulgence. The affidavit of transcription, page 17, also of Agent Park Kalilong, dated December 26, 2024. Are we ready with that video?

Council for the Prosecutors. Because I know the Council will ask the same question. So at the same time, Your Honor, what is the objection? I'm not yet done. I'm

not yet done.

Kindly let the Council for the Prosecutors finish. Relax.

Now, Your Honor, if the same line of question will be asked, Okay. Your Honor. Wait, wait. I'm not yet done. He cannot preempt Your Honor. I'm not yet done. The prosecution is willing to stipulate that yes, The Vice President uttered that statement as to the fact of her uttering the statement.

We have a different question, Your Honor, just to satisfy his query.

All right. So I guess the objection or manifestation is withdrawn, and counsel for respondent may proceed with the showing or playing of the video.

Kainin ninyo dito sa offices. Lahat ng juice, lahat ng mamahaling wine.

Pero iyong taong-bayan, iyong taong-bayan, ninyo sa [unclear] rice, iyong taong-bayan na hindi ninyo pinupuntahan sa mga komunidad nila, anong sabi nila? Asin lang. Okay na. May kanin naman. Ganiyan ang bayan natin. Okay na lang kami sa asin. [unclear] nakahanap ka ng bayan na ang tao, because of their hopelessness, because there is no functioning government, umaasa na lang sa asin.

na nga lang abogado si Ernie Lopez eh.

Kasi alam niya kung ano sasabihin niya doon sa mga pumasok sa kwarto niya.

Na take note, nag-nakao pa ng cellphone. Ano

ka nakahanap? Papasok ka, nanangkawin mo yung cellphone. Nadalhin mo pa yung tao, Princess.

You're raising your hand.

Hello? Naririnig po ba ako? Princess Maui?

Yes.

Oh, thank you. Good morning po, Madam Vice President. Thank you so much na po pala sa dalan niyong Hopia nung hearing na pumunta kayo for PRRD. Kami yung nasa likod niyo po, yung tinawag nyo ng bastos kasi pumalak pa kami because of Congresswoman Cardema.

Thank you ma'am. Nakakain kami ha po po eh. Natatakot kumain ang pagkain doon mamamaya eh. Ma'am mag-iingat po kayo ha. Nasa teritoryo kayo ng kalaban.

Okay lang po kayo po ma'am kasi sila naman ako na eh.

Sila talaga yung bastos eh. You reap what you sow.

Mag-iingat po kayo kasi sa dinami-rami po ng inyong mga pasabog ngayong gabi, it seems like marami po talaga kayong alam about them no? Dahil sa pagkakasama niyo sa kanila. During the campaign and during the 2022 elections, baka po mamaya kasi totoo yung mga narinig namin or yung, I don't know if it's true, na meron daw silang Operation Romanovs and baka bala kayong ubusin ang inyong pamilya dahil hadlang kayo sa kanilang mga balakin in the future. So mag-iingat po kayo. Kami po kasi na, kami ng EDSA Friday group, kami yung bumababa every Friday dyan sa EDSA because we believe yan yung tamang venue. Sa dinami-narami na ng problema natin, ang kaya naman po namin gawin ay manawagan na bumaba na yan. Eh ano po kaya ang remedy naman ninyong mga nasa posisyon or nung mga kayang labanan itong napakarami na pong ginagawang corruption at krimen laban sa taong bayan? Ano po ang pwede ninyong maging remedy para matapos na ito? Lalo't nagsisigaw na po ang taong bayan na mag-people power na.

Yes. Huwag ka mag-alala, ma'am, sa security ko kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sinabi ko sa kanya, kapag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Lisa Araneta at si Martin Romandes. No joke.

No joke. Nag-deal-in na ako, ma'am.

Kapag namatay ako, sabi ko, huwag ka tumigila hanggang hindi mo magpatay sila.

And then he said yes.

So, alam mo, ma'am, Ang laban nandun sa loob ng palasyo. Yan ang problema.

We appreciate yung expression ninyo ng disgust, ng pagkamuhi,

Hopelessness, kasi it reflects kung ano yung nararamdaman ng

marami, milyon, milyon. Alam ko yan, ma'am, kasi kahit saan ako pumunta, ako ang sinasabihan, binoto namin yan dahil sinabi mo, iboto namin.

So, yes, ma'am. Maraming salamat sa ginagawa ninyo. Dahil sa ginagawa ninyo, I'm sure nakikita yan. Ang taong bayan, and naa-appreciate nila yan. Marami sa ating mga kababayan ang gusto sumali sa inyo. Pero sa sobrang hirap ng

buhay ngayon, hindi nila maiwanan yung mga trabaho nila at hanap buhay nila para pumunta sa daan. Bakit sila naghihirap? Bakit?

Dahil sa gobyerno. Di ba dapat yung gobyerno na natin ang nagpapagaan ng buhay ng tao? Bakit ang gobyerno natin ang nagpapahirap lalo sa tao?

Kasi gusto ba nila lagi nalang mahirap ang mga tao para madali mapasunod? May mga lugar kami sa Mindanao na ganyan ang mga politiko. Gusto nila mahirap lahat. E bahugan lang nila ang puwarta.

Governor na sila. Mayor na sila. Congressman na sila. Hanapin niyo ma'am!

Yung mga lugar na sobrang hirap sa Mindanao, tingnan nyo anong gawain ng politiko. Pinapakain lang ng pera ang tao. Pinabastos yung kanilang pagkatao dahil wala silang pakialam. Erwin

Atty. Lotoc, she said a lot of statements in that portion of the video. In fact, that statement included the statement which you investigated, correct?

Included in the transcription, sir. All right.

Now you get the point. My question to you is this. Can you confirm now that the statements she made about BBM, FL, and the former Speaker, and the Congressman, relating

to various acts of corruption, are true and happened in real life?

As to the existence of that utterances, yes, sir.

Alright, so you just admitted that the congressmen are all correct. Thank you for that. That

That is a foul side remark. Counsel is twisting the answer of the witness. Can I finish? Can I finish?

Can I finish? The witness said that he confirmed as to the fact that the utterances were made. That's why, Your Honor, I object.

Kindly be more specific.

Atty. Lotoc, you know what's being asked for.

Yes, sir.

Finish and complete your answer to avoid the misunderstanding.

Well, based on our investigation, as to the existence of the utterances, yeah, dahil may mga pieces of evidence kami. But whether or not nangyari yan, wala akong personal knowledge, sir.

Alright. In the same way, You also do not have personal knowledge that VP Sara contracted an assassin, correct?

Your Honor, the video dated November 26, 2024. The Vice President reiterated and in fact—

Just, it's answerable by Yes or No, Your Honor.

How can he be— Counsel, counsels, kindly settle down. This is not a college debate. Atty. Lotoc, the question was simple. Kindly answer the question directly.

Yes, sir. You do not have personal knowledge. That utterance as made by the vice president that she contracted a person, I do believe that's her because of the pieces of evidence that we've gathered, sir.

No, I'm not asking whether or not she said those statements. I'm asking if you have personal knowledge based on this that the Vice President really contracted an assassin—sorry, a person.

Objection. Asked and answered. Second time around.

Based on our investigation, Your Honor, we do believe that the Vice President—

Atty. Lotoc, you're a smart man. Just answer the question. Do you have personal knowledge?

You said that as to the other parts, you do not have personal knowledge. But now, my question to you is as to the part whether VP Sara talked to that person about BBM, the First Lady, and the Speaker: do you have personal knowledge or not? Pwede ko pong i-explain, Your Honor? No, just answer the question yes or no.

Atty. Lotoc, this is not the first time you attended a trial. I'm sure counsel for the prosecutors and redirect will be able to clarify whatever you want to clarify. But in the meantime, answer the question of counsel for the respondent.

Yeah, we do believe that... The vice president had contracted, but I don't have personal knowledge. Kung personal knowledge ang gusto niyong malaman, pero we do believe based on the evidence that we've gathered and based on our investigation.

Thank you for that admission.

Alright. The presscon was broadcasted to the general public, correct?

Social media, sir, yes. In other words, everybody listening to it could hear the statements made by VP Sara? We believe so, sir, yes. Are you aware that the vice president is a lawyer?

Yes, sir. Of course.

That he has, of course, a law degree and passed the bar exams?

Yes, sir.

With the first attempt and with the rating of 80%, are you aware of this? I heard it in the news, sir. Oh, she has a higher grade than most of the lawyers here. But are you aware that she also worked as a court attorney?

Relevance. Relevance. Objection. Relevance.

Counsel for the respondent, kindly avoid those disparaging statements given that... There are a lot of lawyers here and you don't know what their grades are. We

will comply, Your Honor. So my question to you is this. If she was serious about her alleged plan involving BBM, FL, and the former speaker, does it make sense for her that she would publicly announce this to the general public? If you know. I don't know that, Your Honor. Alright.

In fact, you showed, in your direct examination, you also showed portions of the October 18 presscon, correct?

Yes, sir.

And that presscon was also done in general, before the general public, correct?

I believe so, sir.

Alright. Based on your investigation or your experience as an investigator, kapag may balak bang patayin ng isang tao, sinasabi ba nila yung plano nila sa general public?

Well, kapag may grave threats, sir, naririnig iyon ng iba.

my more important question to you is this. Did VP Sara directly say her statements to BBM, FL, and the former Speaker?

Well, the fact na sinabi niya yan in public, definitely narinig niya ng Presidente.

May we ask for a more responsive answer?

kindly answer. The answer is actually quite obvious. It's a simple question. Did the Vice President utter those statements directly towards the persons allegedly threatened?

We believe so, Your Honor, because the utterances was made in public.

So what's the

answer? Did VP Sara directly say those statements to BBM? FL and the former speaker. Ascon answered, he said, we believe so. But we did not get the responsive answer, Your Honor. Can we ask the witness to give a more responsive answer? That's his answer. We believe so.

Yes. That's a

yes. That's so clear.

Without putting words into the mouth of the witness, I will be the one to ask. Atty. Lotoc, you meant yes, right?

Yes, sir.

Proceed, counsel.

Alright.

Are you aware that in one interview following the press con,

BBM mentioned that he was open for reconciliation with the Vice President.

I'm not

aware of that. Not aware, okay. I'll make you aware today. Can we play D-4-12, please?

Mr. President, kayo po ba sa puso ninyo, gusto nyo bang makipagkasundo

pa sa mga Duterte? Oo! Ako ayoko ng gulo. Gusto ko makasundo sa lahat ng tao. Mas maganda. Marami na akong kaaway. Hindi ko kailangan ng kaaway. Kailangan kong kaibigan. Kagaya na ang sabi ko sa'yo. Pagka... Magkakonfes ako dito. Pwede naman po. Para akong pari po dito ngayon ako.

Ewan ko. Kahit hanggat maaari. Ako ang habol ko.

iyong stability, peaceful, para magawa namin iyong trabaho namin. Kaya ako, lagi akong bukas sa ganyan. I'm always open to any approach na, halika, magtulungan tayo. Kahit hindi tayo magkasundo sa pulisiya, hindi tayo magkasundo, gawin na iyong trabaho, pero huwag na tayong [unclear].

All right. Nangugulo. Huwag na natin, tanggalin natin iyong gulo.

Atty. Lotoc, so based on that video,

BBM was open to reconcile with VP Sara, correct? Anong date po ng video, sir? We will provide the date in a while. They're researching on it. But even without the date, you can confirm. Hindi, gusto kong malaman kung anong date, sir. So

you cannot answer the question without us providing the date? Tinignan ko

kung ilang buwan na yan after noong November 23. Alright.

Move on, Council. While you're checking on the date, you can go back to that topic.

Now, assuming...

that this happened after, do you still maintain that BBM really believed, in his mind, that VP Sara would harm or kill him?

How would I know that, Your Honor? Precisely. So you don't know. You cannot know that, Your Honor, correct? Because you cannot enter the state of mind of the President.

Unless there is a basis, Your Honor, gaya ng investigation namin sa utterances ni VP na may mga circumstances. Pag iyan lang ang nakita ko, siyempre hindi namin ma-establish iyong state of mind ng Presidente.

isn't it in your affidavit of investigation, you mentioned about the state of mind of the president?

State of mind of the president? Correct.

After the statements of VP Sara, you interpreted the mind. It's like you went into the mind of the alleged offended parties, BBM, FL. And the speaker, and based on your own interpretation, you determined or concluded that they were threatened. Is that not the case?

Yeah, ang sinabi doon ng presidente, nakakabahala yung mga narinig natin itong mga nakaraang araw. And then isa itong kriminal na pagtatangka, ito'y aking papalagaan. So, at that moment, the president took the utterances serious and real, sir. But

you just... Based that on his own statement, you did not enter his state of mind, correct? Objection, Your Honor. I think, where is this leading?

What's the objection? A witness is being asked to enter the state of mind.

What's the

basis for the objection, Your Honor? Incompetent. Incompetent.

Incompetent.

The witness already said that, based on their investigation and the statement of the President after the event, they determined that the President felt threatened.

And the question now is: did you enter his state of mind?

Your Honor, I'm now objecting on the reason that this person is incompetent to answer.

Your Honor, we will be satisfied with just the basis. If he had said 'incompetent,' we would ask for a ruling. He doesn't have to lecture, Your Honor.

For the record, kindly reform, counsel. I think I know where you're getting at.

All right. My question to you is this: do you have a background in forensic psychology?

Do you have a background on behavioral

psychology? Well, we were taught about subject

matter in the academy. Yes or no will do. Do you have a forensic psychology department in NBI's Cybercrime Division?

Forensic psychology? Yes. We have BSD. We have a medical legal department. Medical legal only? Okay. We have a psychiatrist. We have a psychologist. We have a...

All of those, sir.

Alright, in other words, you do not have a professional assessment of the mind of BBM when you conducted this affidavit of investigation, correct? Okay, sir.

The investigation, ganito po ang nangyari. Nung nag-comment yung presidente na nakakabahala yung mga utterances, Pwede lang po doon, tinignan namin yung comment ng iba't ibang government agencies na ganoon din yung kanilang reaksyon. Nakakapahala yung sinabi ng vicepresidente, magiging issue yan ng national security. Pero lang po yun, kinonsider din namin yung comments at impression ng mga media personalities na nag-participate doon sa online press conference. Sabi nila na-shock sila, na bigla sila, hindi sila… Atty.

parang totoo iyong galit ng Vice President. And then aside from that, from those facts, ganoon din ang ginawa namin sa former Speaker sa kaniyang reaction. So taking all these facts and circumstances, na-establish namin na indeed iyong reaction ng Presidente is trinato niya na seryoso at totoo iyong utterances na iyon na ginawa ni VP Sara noong November 23.

Atty. So, ito ho. Kaya lang dito, ipapakita niyo sa akin yan. Yan lang mag-isa. Hindi namin nakita yung ibang circumstances. Hindi ho ako makakapagsabi kung sa mind ng presidente is pinatawad na ba niya, ayaw na niya, hindi na ba niya kinukonsider yung mga threat na yon. Pag ganyan lang yun, honor. Sa investigation kasi kailangan makita namin yung ibang-ibang circumstance. Para ma-establish namin whether or not, ah, ito yung ibig niyang sabihin. Ito yung intention niya.

For the record, Your Honor, the date of the video is May 19, 2025. So, this came after college.

2025. So, mga seven months, sir? Yeah, seven months.

Alright, so, based on your experience as an investigator, baka pwedeng ano na?

Again, hindi sa sufficient para makita namin kasi...

Anyway, we know for a fact na—

we're satisfied with your first answer. The

witness is still answering.

I didn't even ask a question, your honor.

You did, counsel, when you gave the date and asked for his opinion. Kindly finish your answer.

Thank you, your honor. As lawyers, we know for a fact that the state of mind can manifest based on the overt acts of the speaker. So dito kasi, kung ito lang ang pagbabatayan namin, Then we try to establish yung intent or yung state of mind ng presidente. Kulang ho yan. So siguro kung may makikita pa kami yung ibang circumstances na magpapatunay na binaliwala niya niya yung utterances, pinatawad niya niya yung vice-presidente, and things like that, then we can somehow say mukha nga ang totoo yung sinabi ng presidente na pinatawad niya.

All right, but I'll move on to a different point.

Before counsel for the respondent continues, what is the pressure of Senator Judge Cayetano? Just

one specific clarification on that point, just so that we don't lose the point. The gentleman may proceed. Excuse me lang sa prosecution and sa defense. Witness, one point lang, maybe one or two questions on that point. Sabi mo, the President, sa pananaw mo, and yung iba... Speaker Martin felt threatened.

Base doon sa investigation namin. Base sa investigation at base sa video. Base sa video, sa investigation at sa ibang testimony.

So if they felt threatened, that means tingin nila totoo yung sinabi ni VP Sara na patayin sila.

Kasi they wouldn't feel threatened if they don't think na she meant it na patayin silang tatlo, right?

In our investigation,

Trinato nila iyong utterances as seryoso. Yes.

So they won't feel threatened unless tingin nila seryoso yung threat.

According to them, seryoso yung threat. Yes. Okay.

But the threat was, pag pinatayin niyo ako, papatayin ko kayo. So kung hindi naman nila sila balak patayin, why would they feel threatened? Unless you're saying now, you think, balak nga nilang papatayin si Vice President.

Actually, sir, ito, from the point of view of law enforcement like us, Yun nga yung naging alarming na issue dun sa amin, Sara. I

agree. I'm also, Mr. Vitez, I'm also alarmed with the language, with saying that I'm alarmed with what's happening in our country, in flood control, etc. But that's not my point. My point is, in your investigation, para maging grave threat, kailangan yung party na trinetten feels threatened. Pero ang sinabi ni VP Sara, pag pinatay ako, patayin silang tatlo. So kung wala naman silang tatlo balak na patayin siya, why would they feel threatened? Did that not come into your mind as an investigator? What

comes into your mind, your honor, is yun nga, yung possibility na God forbids may mangyari sa BP na hindi naman alam nung tatlo, then matitrigger ngayon yung instruction, then papatayin yung tatlo na hindi naman nila alam. At the same time, may mga ibang

grupo— Then in that case, hindi ba logical because you're the president of the Philippines, you order the PSC, To make sure that walang mangyari sa kanya rather than baliktad na tinanggalan siya ng security.

I'm just following your logic. I won't argue. I'm satisfied, Mr. President. I'm just trying to figure out nga, no? How you came about yung gave threats given ang sinabi niya kung papatayin ako. So, finish

your answer so that we can— We qualify that gave threats sa term namin as event-based condition na yun nga pag nangyari yung event, Atty.

magti-trigger ngayon iyong threat ng Vice President. Now insofar as na-threaten sila, iyong sinasabi mo po, sir, na pag namatay si Vice President, saka papatayin ngayon ng tao na inutusan niya iyong tatlo. Ang isa sa alarming, na very alarming part na nakita namin, iyong mga sasakay ho na grupo

Kasi, God forbid, puwedeng mawala ang Vice President, but not necessarily sila iyong dahilan.

Mamatay siya for one reason or the other. Then, ang impression na ng marami, ang may kasalanan nito, iyong tatlo. So, again, magkakalabo-labo na iyan. May sasakay na sa issue, thinking na pag pinatay nila iyong tatlo, ang sisisihin ngayon iyong kampo ni Vice President kasi may utterances na ginawa ang Vice President to that effect. So, iyon ho iyong sa investigation namin. Now, insofar as

Pumasok ho yung elements ng grave threats. Yeah, we believe na pumasok yung elements ng grave threats kasi na-satisfy ho lahat nung elements ng grave threats based on the

revised manual. I'm

assessing your answer but malayo na malapit yung sagot mo dun sa triggering events ha. Kasi parang logical diba? Dahil sinabi niya yun baka may gumawa. Hindi nga eh mag-trigger, papatay sa kanya. So para ma-trigger na patayin ang Pangulo, you're saying that VP Sara is asking other people to kill her so that they can kill Marcos. Sana sinabi na lang niya patayin niya si Marcos. Sabi mo i-trigger but anyway, I'm trying to process but hindi logical yung sinabi mo that event will trigger. Because the event that will trigger the assassination on the tree is the killing of the Vice President. And the Vice President will not tell people, kill me so that you kill them.

Precisely, Your Honor. Ang death kasi, for instance, mamatay ang Vice President, it does not necessarily follow na iyong tatlo iyong lang papatay, base doon sa appearances. Puwede kasing mamatay ang Vice President for one reason or the other. And again, since walang makakaalam kung sino ang pumatay diyan, ang impression ng mga tao ngayon, mati-trigger ngayon iyong instruction. Pag na-trigger iyong instruction, puwede na ngayong sumakay iyong iba-ibang grupo, thinking na kahit mabulilyaso, ang sisisihin dito ang Vice President, kasi nga may utterances na ginawa ang Vice President in public. From the point of view of law enforcement, ang gulo noon, Your Honor. It's a matter of national security.

It's a matter of national security, Your Honor.

Council, for the respondent, may proceed with his cross.

So just to, before I leave this point, at any rate, you made all those observations and conclusions without any background on forensic.

What do you mean? Psychology, correct? I don't have background for forensic psychology.

Okay, that's enough.

Now, I'll go on to a different point. Let's talk about the context of these statements. The press con included a question and answer portion.

Again, sir? The press con included a question and answer portion.

Yes, I

think so. And the VP Sara's statement, which you investigated, was an answer. To a question that was asked during the presscon.

Yes, sir.

And in fact, the focus of your investigation was VP Sara's answer. Correct?

What kind of answer, sir?

Answer to the question asked in the presscon.

Can you tell me the specific questions and the specific answers?

You were the one who investigated it and you don't know the statement that

you investigated?

Marami hong questions doon, maraming answers.

Exactly. Objection, vague.

Sustained. Kindly reform, counsel.

Alright.

In our exhibit D-1-145A, I will read the transcription. This is the transcription also by John Mark Kalilong, dated December 26, 2024. A certain Princess Maui asked, Mag -iingat po kayo kasi sa dinami-rami ng pasabog ninyo ngayong gabi, It seems like marami po talaga kayong alam about them dahil sa pagkakasama ninyo sa kanila during the campaign and during the 2022 elections. Baka po mamaya kasi totoo yung mga naririnig namin, I don't know if it's true, na meron daw silang Operation Romanov. And baka bala kayong ubusin ang inyong pamilya dahil hadlang kayo sa kanilang mga bala in the future. So mag-iingat po kayo. My question to you is this. Will you agree that based on this question by one Princess Maui, there was also a threat against VP Sara and her family, namely Operation Romanov?

Well, sabi ko nga, narinig ko iyong term na Romanov noong binigkas iyon ni Mayor Baste during the Maisug rally. Other than that, wala kaming validated information about Operation Romanov. But you watched this video, correct? So you heard it also during that time? Iyan ho iyong sabi ni Princess Maui, sir. Nag-invite kami kay Princess Maui. Tinanong ko iyong agent on case kung nag-invite ba tayo kay Princess Maui; ang sabi ng agent on case, hindi raw siya nag-appear. All right, kasi we want to clarify things.

With the permission of counsel for respondent, what is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo?

Mr. Presiding Officer, kahapon kasi nabanggit ko yung Romanov and I did mention na para sa akin nagmula yung salitang Romanov. Atty. Mayor

Mayor Baste Duterte, when

during a rally sa Maisug in Davao. So ang tanong ko ngayon kay Mr. Witness: natatandaan pa ba kung ano iyong sinabi ni Mayor Baste Duterte patungkol doon sa Romanovs that night?

Yes, Sir. I will try if I remember it right. Ang sabi niya, Mr. President, sabi niya, remember what happened to the Romanovs.

If I'm not mistaken, sir, parang ang sinasabi niya kasi mayroong... No, I

think when you go to bed tonight, continue.

Yes, sir. Sabi po yan.

Okay.

When you go to bed tonight, think about the Romanovs. Yun po yata yung pagkasabi.

Parang sinasabi niya na baka mangyari sa pamilya niyo yun gaya ng nangyari sa inyo noong 1996.

Kung tama yung memory ko, sir. Parang ganun po ang sinasabi ni Mayor Bastet.

Kaya nga, Mr. President Officer, nagtataka ako na binanggit yan ni Princess Maui doon sa press conference, sa online press conference ni VP Sara, yung Romano na banta for Sara Duterte when in fact, it was Bastet Duterte ang ibitaw ng salita na iyon. Warning sa First Family. So, which is which, Mr. Witness? Para sa'yo, saan ba

talaga yung Romanov nag-umpisa? At sino ba talaga dapat mag-ingat doon sa banta ng Romanov?

Yeah, and so far as our investigation is concerned, since nag-start yan doon kay Mayor Baste, at wala ho kaming ma-validate na ibang Romanov operations na nangyari.

I think nag-start yan sa kanila, sir. Sa kapatid ng vice-presidente.

Thank you, Mr. Witness. No other questions? Mr. Presiding Officer?

Noted. Entered into the records. And counsel for the respondent may continue with his cross.

Alright. So you mentioned that just now that Mayor Bastet said, think about the Romanovs, correct?

Yan yung statement ng Mayor Bastet, sir. But

I'm asking, Operation Romanov eh. So hindi naman think about the Romanovs. My question to you is this.

With the permission of counsel for the respondent, Senator Tulfo seeks recognition again. What is the pleasure of Senator Tulfo? I

just want to make it clear, Mr. Presiding Officer, na yung threat na yun, yung Romanov na salita, it was used to warn as a threat to the first family. The word Romanov came from the mouth. Of President, I mean Mayor Bastet Duterte, na para bang binabantaan niya yung first family. You follow me, Mr. Witness? Yes, sir.

Tama po yan.

Thank you.

Noted. Council may proceed.

Your Honor, that's my question. Can the Witness be allowed to answer that question with a manifestation first before he allows?

Kindly repeat the question because even I forgot the question,

Council. You mentioned that Mayor Bastet said that statement, think about the Romanovs, etc. Yes, sir. But he did not mention Operation Romanov. It was Princess Maui who mentioned the word Operation Romanov. And I know you don't have, I mean, I personally don't have any knowledge about what Mayor Bastet said and that is not the subject of this case. Let's just stick to the facts of this case. In the video, it was Princess Maui who said Operation Romanov. Now, will you agree with me that based on that question, there was also a threat against VP Sara and her family? That's the question.

According to the question, sir, yes.

Alright. Now, you mentioned yesterday that you can motu proprio investigate threats against the Vice President.

Under the law, sir, yes.

My next question is very simple. Did you conduct... A separate investigation on Operation Romano.

Well, since ang focus ng operations namin, sir, is cybercrime investigation, I think ang makakasagot niyan yung intelligence service namin, sir. Insofar as the cybercrime division is concerned, ang focus namin, crimes committed by, through, and with the use of information and communication technology. As to the fact whether or not may Operation Romanov, ang makakasagot po niyan either yung intelligence service o yung director namin, sir.

So insofar as you are concerned, there is no ongoing investigation on Operation Romanov?

Again, ang focus ng investigation namin doon sa grave threat and then inciting to sedition against the Vice President insofar as the existence of whether or not may Operation Romanov. Siguro makakasagot niyan sir yung Intelligence Service, yung Director hoon namin.

Alright, so no. At any rate, are you aware of any, if the Vice President was the target of unauthorized intelligence or surveillance operations?

I'm not aware sir.

Alright, with the permission of council, chair will recognize Senator Judge Pangilinan thereafter, Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo.

Just one or two quick questions on the issue

of Princess Maui

and itong investigation na sinasabing inimbisigahan ba yung threat against the Vice President. Kung hypothetically dumating si Princess Maui at nagpaliwanag,

tungkol sa Operation Romanov at sinabi niya ang detalye, kikilos ba ang cybercrime?

Ano ang gagawin ninyo kung nakuha ninyo iyong ganoong klaseng information? Ang problema, sabi nga ninyo kanina, hindi nga humarap. But as in any other case, kung may humarap at pinag-usapan at sinabi ganito yung threat, What is the standard operating procedure of the NBI?

We validate first the information, sir. And then pag-confirm na, then we will start case build-up, sir. Thank you. Thank

you. Senator Judge Erwin Tulfo, what is your pleasure, sir?

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Just want to direct my question to the witness here.

Yes, Your Honor.

Yung Romano Platt,

Well, aside from what Senator Judge Tulfo said that came from Bastet, but I picked it up doon sa video na pinalabas kanina ng defense. Yes,

Your Honor.

Yung Romano Platt versus Sara according to Princess Maui. Did you take that information seriously or not?

Yes, Your Honor. That's the reason why nung marinig namin, umakita namin yung question ni Princess Maui about the Romano. We conducted an open source investigation. Tinignan namin baka meron. Yun nga ang nakita namin yung January 2024 during Maiso Grali, if I'm not mistaken, yung the term, the word Romano ang nagbigkas nun si Mayor Baste, Your Honor.

Alright. So, yung statement ni Princess Maui sa video, How do you rate that info? Sa inyo po, sa NBI, sa mga intelligence agencies, yung mga informations po ninyo, may rating. Tama po ba? Correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. Witness. For example, pag yung information po ninyo, pag yung information po na natanggap ninyo, ay may mga rating po. A1, completely reliable. A2, completely reliable information. Probably true. B1. Usually reliable source. Information confirmed. B2. Usually reliable. Information probably true but needs validation. C1. Fairly reliable source. Information confirmed. C2. Fairly reliable source. Information needs validation. D2F. Source is doubtful, unreliable or reliability cannot be assessed. So, saan yung nilagay, yung sinabi ni Princess Maui, saan dito sa classification po na ito ng source of information? Is it A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, hanggang DF? Saan po?

Kasi po ngayon, Sir, napakarami na po mga informasyon, mga fake news.

Opo, Sir. Sir, we... Pwede na pong sumagot. Go ahead po. Go

Go ahead po.

Sir, yung una po namin ginawa, we tried to invite... Princess Maui to shed light doon sa sinasabi nilang Romanov. Since hindi ho nag-appear si Princess Maui, wala ho kaming base. So, klinasify muna namin ito ng non-validated information. Naghanap kami sa open source. Yun nga ang nakita namin ang unang nagbigkas niyan si Mayor Baste. So, medyo nakita namin. Teka muna. Parang baliktad yata ang sitwasyon. Kung kay Mayor Bastien nagsimula ang Romanov, bakit dito ito yung tinatanong ni Princess Maui sa Vice Presidente? So medyo it doesn't make sense, sir. Wala kaming na-validate since hindi nag-appear si Princess Maui. So we classify the information as unvalidated information. So

what you did, nung hindi mo makonfirm yung kay Princess Maui information, Naghanap ka ng counter source.

Yes, sir. Open source, sir.

Open source. Okay. To validate.

Yes, sir. And

what happened to that source?

Yeah, based doon sa video na yon, January, if I'm not mistaken, yun nga, yung Maiso Grani, Your Honor, ang unang nagbanggit ng Romanov, si Mayor Baste, parang tinatakot niya yung presidente. Okay, Mr.

Waites, I'm running out of time. So, isa lang po ang tanong ko. So, yung information po ni Princess Maui doon sa video, yung sinabi niya kay BP, eh hindi po reliable.

Hindi reliable insofar as the Cybercrime Division is concerned, sir. Thank you,

Mr. Presiding Officer. The

interventions of the Senator-Judge are noted. What is the pleasure of Senator-Judge Villanueva?

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, Mr. President. Just a very quick question on this particular topic. I will no longer dwell on Operation Romanov, despite the fact that—thank you to Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo, who told me about the dates—and I will not even mention or tackle the conditional threat. But I was looking at this NBI letter dated 2 December 2024,

marked as Annex I. This is prosecution's P-4-5 exhibit. It invited respondent Duterte to appear in connection with the investigation of alleged grave threats.

Mr. Witness, nakasaad din po dito sa sulat na iniimbestigahan ng NBI iyong mga banta laban sa kanya,

at makakatulong po dito ang kanyang pagharap sa imbestigasyon. Tama po ba ito, Attorney?

po, Your Honor. Tama

po yan. Dahil po hindi personal na pumunta ang ating vicepresidente, ano po yung naging epekto nito sa investigation ninyo sa mga bantalaban sa kanyang buhay? Gusto ko lang mong malaman. Ipinagpatuloy niyo po ba ang investigasyon ng NBI? What is now the status of this investigation?

Yes, sir. Una, since yung second letter ng Vice President through her lawyer, may sinasabi doon na may threat sa life six months ago pa. So nung trinay naming i-check yun, Your Honor, ang nakita lang naming relevant information as to the security, yung pagbabawaso ng 75 PNP personnel from BPSPG, if I'm not mistaken. And then, I think, transfer ho yata yung mga personnel na yan sa Manila.

And then, when we check the record, yun nga, meron pang, based on the COA record, meron pang 335 more or less, if I'm not mistaken, na security personnel ang vice-presidente. So, other than those...

facts, wala ho kaming makitang relevant na security issue, dahil iyon nga, hindi naman nag-appear ang ating Vice President. Hindi naman sila nagbigay ng any information na puwede naming pagsimulan po.

So after

that, you did not pursue anymore the investigation on the threats against the Vice President?

Ang alam ko ang aming intelligence service ang may monitoring na ginagawa from time to time. I

ask this question, Mr. Witness, and for our people. Kasi hindi na po yung Operation Romanov, hindi na po itong conditional threat. Kung hindi, ito ba ay nabigyan, accorded the same level of attention dun sa mga threats na inyong nakukuha gaya ng binabanggit natin na threat. Atty. Dio Mano ng ating Vice Presidente. Kasi ang tanong, hindi rin naman po nagpunta sa inyo ang Pangulo o ang Speaker of the House. And yet, you pursued your investigation. So, in that way, paano ninyo may explain ito, Atty. Notok, na ginawa nyo talaga yung lahat ng inyong magagawa para investigahan din yung threat laban sa pangalawang Pangulo?

Opo, Your Honor. Magkaiba po siya. Yung grave threats na inutter ng Vice President against the President, apparent po siya, Your Honor, nakita po namin nasa video, inauthenticate namin ang video, nag-testify yung mga may personal knowledge na in fact sinabi niya yun. So, malinaw ho na nag-exist yung utterances na yun that qualifies the crime of grave threats. Dito ho, sa threat ng Vice Presidente, Wala ho kaming ganung same na information na nakuha. Wala kaming apparent na mayroong threat against sa life ng vicepresidente kasi nga hindi sila nagbigay ng specific information, hindi ho nagpakita ang vicepresidente para Mag-shed light doon sa investigation namin. So, hindi ho namin siya makita na parehas. Magkaiba po yun. Ang sa presidente, apparent siya. So, definitely under the law, ang NBI can motor-proprio undertake an investigation. Dito sa vice-presidente, allegation siya. Wala kaming ma-validate information. So, hindi ho pa magti-trigger yung investigation doon. But, I am sure, insofar as the intelligence service of the NBI is concerned, Continuous ho yung monitoring yan at naghahanap po sila ng mga lead para ma-solidify yung information na yan.

Thank you, Mr. Witness. I know the law. Presidente, Vice Presidente, Speaker, pwede niyong tignan at imbestigahan yan but I feel na importanteng maipakita natin sa taong bayan that same level of attention ang ibinigay po natin at we also If we need to walk the extra mile of investigating, we have to do it in the name of fairness. So, yun ang po yung nakita ko and siguro yung sinasabi niyo nga po, hindi sumapat iyong inyong nakalap ng mga impormasyon. Whether the information ay kulang or hindi kayo nagkaroon ng access sa mga information na ito, kaya po hindi nagduloy.

That is in so far as the cybercrime division is concerned.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

What is the pleasure of Senator Judge Lacson? Thank you, Senator Judge Villanueva. I

just want to pursue the point raised by Senator Judge Rapitulpo and the others. The gentleman may proceed and he has two minutes. I don't know about the other senator judges, pero until today, when Senator Judge Rapitulpo clarified, Atty. Oplon Romanov, Atty. J.

first family?

Yes, sir.

Ang impression ko since last week, noong pinag-uusapan natin iyong Oplan Romanov, threat ito against the Vice President. And since sabi ninyo, part ng investigation ninyo ang open source, di ba?

Yes, sir.

Iyong speech ni Mayor Baste Duterte sa Maisug, naging part ba ng open source ninyo iyon?

In this

particular investigation that you conducted,

hindi po siya nag-form part as… So kulang

yung inyong open source information.

Hindi po kami naka-focus sa Romanov, Your Honor.

Was it also your impression na iyong threat doon sa Romanov was directed against VP Sara, until today?

I don't…

Please. Be honest. Don't be ashamed.

I don't think so, Your Honor. Kasi unang-una, ang context ng Operation Romanov: against the First Family. So definitely against the President and his family, Your Honor. Ngayon, noong tinanong siya ni Princess Maui, doon nga kami nagtaka. Anong ibig sabihin ng Romanov? Anong context niya ng Romanov? Bakit against the Vice President? Hindi naman siya iyong First Family. So iyan iyong reason po, Your Honor, kung bakit we tried

po, Your Honor, kung bakit we tried to invite Princess Maui to shed us some light para makita namin ano bang ibig sabihin doon. Ano ba iyong puwede naming i-validate na information para makapag-case build-up kami pag mayroon?

So bakit hindi naging part ng investigation ninyo doon sa threat against the life of the President and the First Lady? Kasi family iyong binabanggit ni Mayor Baste, di ba? Hindi kasama iyong Speaker?

Hindi kasama si Speaker Romualdez, hindi iyong Chief Justice?

Opo. Yes, sir.

Pero threat against the family, the First Family?

Yes, sir.

As mentioned by Senator-Judge Raffy Tulfo.

Ang sabi mo, hindi naging part ng investigation ninyo sa report or affidavit of investigation iyong open source ng Maisug?

Hindi po siya nakasama.

Bakit hindi naisama? Open source din iyon. That could reinforce iyong conclusion ninyo na meron talagang serious threat against the President and the others.

Romualdez, Bakit hindi ninyo ginawang part doon sa affidavit of investigation, unless pareho tayo ng impression na until today, ang alam natin sa Romanov ay threat against VP Sara? Iyon ang impression ko since last week.

That's exactly my

question, Atty. Lotoc. So ngayon nyo rin lang na-realize na yun palang Oplan Romanov, etret pala sa first family. First family.

Opo, Your Honor.

Thank you. Noted. Entered into the records.

I would have recognized Sen. Goff first but since you're there already, Sen. Judge Alan Gaetano. This is

just a

manifestation and point of information. As Sen. Judge Lacson said, it's for each judge to appreciate. But let me put context. I'm not close to VP Sara. I'm not close to Mayor Baste. Ang kasama ko sa Congress si former Deputy Speaker Pulong. But in the last four years, I think I've seen him twice or thrice. Yes, Your Honor. Okay. But my reading nung sinabi ni Mayor Baste is pag natulog ka sa gabi, remember the Romanovs. So, we have to look at our history. The Romanovs were evicted via a revolution. Diba? So, Mayor Bastet was doing a parallel ng 1986 na paalis yung mga Marcoses via a revolution. But unlike the Romanovs, the Marcoses were given asylum or whatever you call it in Hawaii. And over time, nakabalik until the president became president. Ang Romanovs, inubos sila para nga hindi maka—

Balik. Now, if Mayor Baste was making Romanovs uubusin kayong Marcos, di dapat na-offend si Sen. Judge Aimee Marcos because she's a Marcos. So, secondly, if he made that threat, so if he was saying, may oplan mo Romanov or maroromanov kayo, I'm sure the PNP or PS—

The Presidential Security Command, the National Council would have filed a case against Baste. So I just want, it's fair that you mentioned him, it's fair sa investigation mo. But I don't think we should draw a conclusion here that Mayor Baste was threatening the first family. Because remember, there's a thin line between a warning and a threat. So pag sinabi ko sa'yo ngayon, witness, pareho tayong abogado, kumpanyero, pareho tayong taga-Ateneo, mag-ingat ka sa sasabihin mo. That could be a fair warning. That could be not a threat. Di ba? But kapag ka may threat talaga na pinarating ko sa'yo, pag hindi ko gusto, ano mo, kakasuwang kita, that could be a illegal threat. Di ba? Pero pwedeng warning. So I just want that on the record, Mr. President Officer, Mr. Senate President. Because everyone's watching, and in the same manner we have to be fair to the first family, we have to be fair also to Mayor Baste and to the Dutertes, rather than draw a conclusion that there was an actual. So the Council for Defense was making a distinction. Mentioning Romanov and Oplan Romanov are two different things. It may be the same, it may be a different thing. For all we know, Narinig ni Mayor Baste na sila iro-Romanov. Kaya binanggit niya pabalik. We don't know. I don't know. I haven't discussed it with anyone. I haven't discussed it with the few senators na kaibigan ko dito. So let's just be circumspect and careful from making conclusions. But as far as it is relevant, Mr. Presiding Officer, I appreciate the answer of the witness. Thank you. Thank

you, Your Honor.

Senator Go, thereafter, Senator Padilla.

Senator Go, you have two minutes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Balik muna tayo dito sa ating bayan. Masyado lang malayo inaabot natin. To our Mr. Witness, some questions lang po, no?

Yes po, Your Honor.

Nabanggit niyo kahapon na 20 years na po kayo sa NBI.

12 years, Your

Honor. Be specific, anong year po?

2014, Your Honor. Nagsimula po ako from the NBI Academy.

2014?

2014. 12 years na po, Your Honor. Ah, hindi 20 years. Hindi 20 years, Your Honor. 12, Your Honor.

12 years. So, kailan ho kayo nag-head ng cybercrime?

February 2023, your honor.

February of 2023. Maupay na adlaw pala. Maupay pong adlaw yapon,

sir.

And to our prosecutor. May hapon, sir. May hapon. Maupay na kulop. Maupay man.

Kailan ho kayo naging RD?

July 2025, Sir.

July 2025. So, naging cybercrime head kayo February of 2023, Sir? Before that, sa ano kayo na-assign?

Chief ng Digital Forensics, Sir. 2022. 2020. Anyway.

So, meron na bang nag-recommend sa inyo or wala na? Nag-apply lang kayo? O sino nag-recommend?

Nang ano po, Sir?

Naging head kayo ng cybercrime?

As chief of the digital forensics, I was designated by the then director, Medardo J. DeLemos. Then as chief of the cybercrime division, I was also designated by the then director, Medardo J. DeLemos.

2016 to 2022 sa ano kinasign?

2016, I think, anti-organized crime and transnational crime. Up to 2020. AOTCD, your honor. Then, 2018, nasa cybercrime division na po. So,

hindi po kayo head doon?

Hindi pa. As an investigation agent po noong 2018, sir.

Anyway, nabanggit niyo po kanina about sworn affidavit. And then, nabanggit niyo about journalists, no? Na part noong press conference. Tama ko ba?

Yes, sir.

Marami sila, di ba? Maraming nabanggit sa mga nakaraang araw, including last week, di ba? Bakit po hindi kinuha ang sariling sworn affidavit ng mga journalist na personal na naroon po sa press conference, sa halip na affidavits ng agents na naglalaman ng inyong summary ng mga sinabi po ninyo? Bakit hindi ninyo pinursige iyong mga affidavit ng mga nandoon sa—

Yes, Your Honor. Nung nag-appear po yung mga media personalities na nag-participate nung online press conference of the November 23, 2024, may kasama po silang lawyer and then we want them to execute an affidavit. Ang advice sa kanila ng lawyer, hindi na raw. Pwede lang silang mag-participate ng interview. Pwede silang mag-sign sabihin sa meeting. So hindi na po namin pinilit. So

wala hong... Journalists or mga vloggers na kasama po doon sa sworn affidavit. Wala ako. Sa inyo lang. Purely puro po ito magaling sa NBI lang po.

Yes, sir. Kasi ayaw po ng lawyer nila na mag-execute sila ng

affidavit. Pero may kasama po silang lawyer doon, Sir.

Yung mga detalye pong nakasaad sa inyong affidavit tungkol sa naganap na press conference, galing ho ba ito sa personal knowledge ng mga agents o batay po sa sinabi ng mga journalist na nakausap po ng agents pagkatapos?

Yes, Your Honor. Q&A yung mode nung interview at nag-reflect ho yan doon sa minutes of meeting and then nag-execute ng affidavit yung Atty. J. Nag

-interview na agent. Atty. So magkasama ho yung mga dokumento na

yun, sir.

Makoconsider mo ba ito na second-hand account? Paano niyo masigurong naging actual ho yung pag-interpret ninyo sa mga sinabi?

Ano pong interpret, sir? I

mean, kung batay po ito sa second-hand account, paano niyo masisiguro na... Sacto, walang naidagdag, or hindi na misinterpret sa pagitan na aktual na sinabi ng mga journalist at mga nakasulat sa inyong affidavit?

Yes, Your Honor. That's the reason why inauthenticate namin yung video mula simula hanggang sa matapos para o hindi kami mawala sa tunay na nangyari. That's the reason why tinanscribe din ng ating agent on case kung ano laman ng video. Atty.

ano yung naging tanungan doon para o hindi kami mawala sa investigasyon namin. And in fact, Your Honor, when we tried to establish whether or not nag-atter ba talaga ang Vice Presidente na may kinausap na siyang tao para pumatay sa tatlo, na confirmed

Confirmed namin ito noong November 26 video. Kasi ni-reiterate ng Vice President, in-admit niya, instead na sinabi niyang hindi ko sinabi iyon, sinabi niya noong November 26 na video na indeed may kinausap na siyang tao para pumatay doon sa tatlo. So, nabuo iyong aming investigation na ang tawag po namin doon is admission against interest.

Doon po sa ginawa ni Vice President during the November 26, 2024. Anyway,

last question na lang po. On sedition, how do you reconcile the fact that the Vice President discouraged her supporters from going to the streets with a claim of inciting to sedition?

Ano po yung... On sedition charges, di ba? Yes, sir.

How do you reconcile the fact that the Vice President discouraged her supporters from going to the streets with a claim of inciting to sedition?

Well, in inciting to sedition, Your Honor, specifically in the case of People v. Nabong, it is not necessary na magkaroon ng actual sedisyon. The law also penalizes if the seditious words would encourage people Atty. G.

illegal acts or to overthrow government. In other words, if the speeches would stir up the people to go against the government, if the speeches would disturb the peace of the community, if the speeches would undermine order and public security, hindi ho necessary na magkaroon ng actual na sedition.

Meron ho bang nagawa iyong Vice President na gaya ng sinasabi ninyo ngayon?

Nagawa po.

Ah, inciting to sedition, Sir? Mag-go,

ha? Mag... Based sa findings namin, Sir, yes. Based po sa findings namin. Um, ganito po ang nangyari. Um, kinumpare po namin based on the content and context of the utterances made by the Vice President in November 23, 2024, the utterances made by the Vice President in October 18, 2024, then the utterances made by the Vice President in 26... November 2024. And under facts and circumstances, nung trinay po namin i-compare siya, may nakikita ho kami ng mga utterances that would stir up the people against the government. For example, Your Honor, nung October 18, ang sabi ng Vice Presidente, walang number one ang Pilipinas na to hanggang number two lang to para sa akin. Wala itong number one. Kinumpara ho namin nung November 23, ang sabi doon sa November 23, I do not recognize anybody above me. It's a reiteration dun sa kanyang sinabi. That's number one, Your Honor. Then number two, may sinabi siya nung October 18 na anong magagawa ko? Hindi marunong maging presidente yung nakaupo. Kasalanan ko ba yun? And then, November 23, kinumpara namin yun. Ang sabi niya dun, this country will go to hell because The person na nakaupo is hindi marunong maging presidente and who is a liar. So nakita namin yung pattern saka consistent na utterances. Then tinina namin yung pangatlong line. Ang sabi niya doon, alam ko si BBM may limang impeachable offense pero papasa ba dyan sa house? Siyempre hindi. Then pagdating sa November 23, sinabi naman niya doon na the president is lying through his teeth para makuha lang niya yung bota ng mga tao. Tapos minura niya sila PICA, BBM, Lisa Marcos, and former Speaker of the House. So tinignan namin sino ba yung nagsasalita? Kung ang nagsasalita, Your Honor, is yung ikalawa sa pinakamataas na posisyon in public at yun yung kanyang utterances, definitely, Your Honor, there is a tendency to stir up the people against lawful government. Kindly wind up, Sen. Go.

No more question, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thank

you, Senator Judge Go. Senator Judge Padilla intimated to the Presiding Officer that he will defer his questions to a later time. Counsel, for the respondent, you may proceed with your cross-examination.

Just a manifestation, Your Honor, in relation to the query or the manifestation of Senator Judge Villanueva.

In relation to the query of... No,

no. His manifestation, Your Honor.

No need, Counsel. Proceed. Unless he asked you a question. It's the

seventh court's time. Please proceed with your cross-examination.

Alright. I'll just transform it into a question. You were asked about that December 2, 2024 letter, correct?

December 2, yes, sir.

That is the letter where you gave a schedule for the Vice President to attend, correct?

Yeah, signed by our assistant director. But

the schedule that you gave was November 11, 2024 at 10 a.m. and then you gave the address. So

in other words, My question naman is this eh, if tama yung schedule sana at nakapunta si VP Sara, would it have affected your investigation?

Your Honor, even up till now, ready ho kaming tanggapin kung anumang information ng Vice Presidente, continuous po yun. In fact, sabi ko nga kanina, yung intelligence service namin is May ginagawang monitoring from time to time doon sa threat to life against the Vice President,

President, President, etc. Okay, I'll move on to a new point. Now, let me show you a portion of the interview of Demsi Reyes of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Please direct your attention to paragraph 13 of the minutes of the meeting. This is also...

The transcription made by Agent Kalilong. Page 173 of Annex G. 9 as well.

So, here,

it says may presscon kasi earlier than that sabi niya na parang sabi niya lang gusto daw siyang patayin daw according to her and his speaker. That was during a press conference the day before November 2022. So, Considering that this is part of the minutes of the meetings, this is also part of the NBI's own records, correct? Yes, sir. Alright. Now, my question is this. Did you issue a subpoena against Speaker Martin Romualdez, former Speaker Martin Romualdez?

Did you issue a subpoena?

Kasi kay Speaker Romualdez, sir? Yes. Kasi ba't ako mag-issue ng subpoena? Wala pa kaming sufficient na... So

what's the... you did that issue? Hindi kami nag-issue, sir. So, in other words, for VP Sara, you issued not just one, but two subpoenas. But for the former speaker, you did not issue a subpoena. That's just the question.

There is an apparent commission of the crime for grave threats and inciting to sedition, sir.

I see. So, for this particular portion, you just turned a blind eye and did not... There is no validated information on that. Let the

witness answer.

There was a question. Counsel, kindly don't argue with the witness.

But based on your testimony yesterday, you said that you have a system of evaluating factors, correct? My question to you is, based on that system, does Martin Romualdez have the capacity to execute a death threat, for example?

We haven't established any apparent crime committed by the former speaker, Your Honor. So hindi kami nag-dealt dyan sa issue na yan.

At any rate, these minutes of the meeting which you all confirmed that is part of the NBI's own record, isn't this information regarding the death threat against VP Sara?

Well, ang sabi po dyan, if I may read, may presscon kasi earlier than that sabi niya parang sabi lang niya Gusto daw, siyang patayin daw, according to her, ni Speaker, that was during a press conference the day before. Precisely, Your Honor, the reason why we issued a letter noong November 22 is to ask the Vice President kung ano ho yung facts and circumstances dyan sa issue na yan. But since hindi ho nag-appear ang Vice Presidente, wala ho talaga kaming mapagsimulan. Wala kaming validated information.

But you issued the subpoena against Dempsey Reyes, correct? Yes, sir. Pero ang tinanong niyo kay Dempsey Reyes yung case lang against VP Sara. Hindi niya siya tinanong ng threats to her, correct?

Well, unang-una, ang ini-establish namin, ang focus ng investigation namin, the reason why we subpoenaed the late Demsi Reyes, is whether or not ba yung Vice President doon sa statement niya

niya na nag-contract na siya ng tao para patayin si BBM, si Liza Marcos, at si former Speaker. Sir, iyon po iyong focus

Marcos, The offended parties in this case, if at all, are BBM, FL, and the former speaker, correct?

Yes, sir.

Did you subpoena any of them?

No, sir.

Did they appear before the NBI?

No, sir.

Nakausap niyo ba sila ng personal? No, sir. And yet, you concluded that they were victims of grave threats, correct? Based

on the evidence we've gathered, yes, sir.

So without any personal correspondences with them, you— Atty. The

evidence is clear. According

to you.

Your Honor, I move that—

Your Honor, I move that defense counsel, with all due respect, be admonished from stating those unprofessional remarks. We are in front of national TV. If you are not satisfied with his answer, please don't put any value to what the witness answered.

This is a reminder for counsel for both parties. Kindly avoid side remarks. Henceforth, the Presiding Officer will have it stricken off the record. And

whatever question you pose and afterwards withdraw, will likewise be stricken off from the record. So as to avoid any attempts at showmanship, usually seen on TV, But that will not be tolerated by this Impeachment Court. Counsel are

so reminded...

We will comply, Your Honor.

Please proceed... To clarify,

Mr. Witness, yung NBI subpoena against VP Sara that you issued was her being a respondent, correct?

Yes, sir.

Pero as a complainant, you did not issue...

We issued a letter, sir, December 2. No, no, no.

As the complainant na siya yung... Subject naman ng threats, walang subpoena as to that effect.

Walang subpoena, Sir. So

in other words, hindi talaga siya naka-explain kasi what you sent out was a letter and not a subpoena.

Yung letter is to inform the Vice President. Na iniimbestigahan din namin yung threat against the life niya. So, therefore, kailangan namin yung presence niya or any information na pwedeng makatulong sa investigation.

Yun na nga. Pero hindi niya siya sinenda ng subpoena. Isn't it that in a regular case, the prosecutor sends out the subpoena both to the complainant and to the respondent?

The prosecutor, sir?

Yes. You're a lawyer. You know this. When you file a case before the prosecutor's office, the handling prosecutor issues out the subpoena sa parehong parties naman.

Ang alam ko, during the case concert, I think nag-appear yata ang vice-presidente sa DOJ. Doon ako na-inform sir.

Okay, I'll move on to a new point. Let's talk about the reversal by the DOJ. Di ba? There was an initial finding on February 5 and then it was eventually reversed. Now... Would you agree with me that the rectifications that you made for the first affidavit of investigation were procedural deficiencies?

Procedural deficiencies? No, it's part of the case build-up, Your Honor.

But what you added were TSNs, affidavits of your own agents, correct? Those were affidavits.

Yes, but don't you consider those as procedural and not substantive?

Part of the evaluation and case build-up, yes sir.

Alright. But in effect, the substance of the case remained the same.

Walang nabago ho sa affidavit, sa una at sa pangalawa, parehas po yan. Very good. So

in other words, wala kang no additional discussion on the merits of the case?

On the merits of the case, yung findings namin, hindi ho nabago yan, sir.

Alright. Very good. So no additional witnesses were interviewed?

What do you mean interviews?

Wala nang additional interviews. Kung ano yun sa first affidavit niyo, yun na rin yun sa second affidavit. Wala nang additional interviewees?

Kung I think ang naaalala ko, anim ho na media personalities ang na-interview namin at yun ho yung nag-reflect sa affidavit at the same time we tried to issue subpoena sa I think head ng ABS-CBN. I understand that, but be more responsive.

Your Honor, if I may, the witness is still in the process of answering his question.

Your Honor, but the answer is not responsive. My question is very simple.

Let him finish first with all the respect, Your Honor.

With the permission of the counsel for the parties. Atty. Lotoc, the question was, sa pagitan ng una at pangalawang sinubmit ninyo sa DOJ, may mga testigo ba kayong dinagdag sa pangalawang ninyong submission sa DOJ? Or the witnesses are the same.

Nilakip lang iyong mga affidavit na hindi nailakip doon sa unang pagsumite?

As far as I'm concerned, Your Honor, they are the same.

But we will never know that for sure because you never released your first affidavit of investigation, correct?

Well, I think it's in the DOJ. Ang binigay sa amin yung certification kung ano yung mga requirements na dapat namin i-comply.

Yeah, but what you attach, when you received the subpoena from the House Committee on Justice, which was used as the basis for the articles of impeachment, the first affidavit of investigation was never included.

Yung nag-submit ho dyan, Your Honor, sila, Agent Kalilong, wala akong idea.

Hindi ninyo alam. All right,

that's okay. So, I have a question about... The Affidavit of Investigation. Okay? An affidavit, or I'll just be more specific, your second affidavit of investigation was subscribed and sworn to, correct?

Yes, sir.

On February 10, 2025. Yes, sir. Alright. Before who?

Can I

check, sir?

Sure.

Witness may consult the document before him. Thank you, Your Honor.

Counsel for the parties may assist him.

Your Honor,

we'll just confront him with our

own— Subscribe on SORN 2 before Assistant Director Glenn A. Ricarte, sir.

Alright, so do you remember that you subscribed along with the other agents before General Ricarte now?

Yes, sir. May signature kami rito.

Alright.

And you did this because the first affidavit of investigation cannot be altered anymore.

What do you mean, sir?

An affidavit, as you know, you are a lawyer. Once an affidavit is subscribed and sworn to, it is a complete document already. Meaning, even if you take out one page or you add an annex, you already alter the meaning of that document. Will you agree with me?

Your Honor, the process is legal evaluation by the prosecutor and case build-up. So, pag nakita ko ng prosecution... Your Honor, I'm just talking

about the nature of the affidavit. I'm not talking about...

Atty. Lotoc, kindly answer the question. It's a general question pertaining to an affidavit in general, not this particular one.

Ano yung question, Sir? Okay, an

affidavit, once you subscribe and swear to it, that already becomes a, if I may use the term, untouchable affidavit in such that... You cannot take out one page, you cannot alter one paragraph, you cannot add annex. Well,

I think kung sinubmit niya na huyan officially sa limbawa, sa korte, hindi na huw pwede yan. Pero yung process namin, yung evaluation saka case build up, naguusap po ang prosecutor saka yung investigator. So sinasabi ng pros, pag may kulang ka, Ito, ito. So, itong unang affidavit, since may kulang sa mga attachment, ayusin nyo, baguhin nyo, i-comply nyo yung mga requirements. Since yung affidavit na yon is nakadate nung January 30, at magkukumply pa lang kami, anong nakumply namin, nag-submit kami sa DOJ and that is already February 10.

So magkaiba ho yung date. So definitely babaguhin namin yung date. Kasi nga dumaan kami sa process ng compliance. In other

words, when you subscribed and sworn to your January 30, 2025 affidavit, you added documents or pages to it?

Ang sabi ko po, sir. Ang sabi ng DOJ, may kulang kayong affidavit of authentication, may kulang kayong TSN. Yun ho yung inattach namin doon sa affidavit.

Precisely. So in other words, you added documents to your January 30, 2025 affidavit? Attachments, sir. Attachments. So you admit that you added attachments to it?

Part of compliance doon sa case build-up at doon sa evaluation na requirement of the Department of Justice.

Alright, but Mr. Wittes,

isn't it that— Your Honor, Your Honor, again, again. Can I respectfully request? Your Honor, may

I just

be allowed to proceed, Your Honor? Counsel for the respondent, let the counsel for the prosecutors finish with this observation or objection. Can

I make a respectful request to the defense to let the witness finish the answer before they propound the next question, Your Honor, please? For orderly proceeding, Your Honor, please.

Point well taken. Counsel, please proceed accordingly. And may I also remind the witness, Atty. Lotoc, kindly answer yes or no instead of yeah and nah.

Yes, sir. Sorry po.

So that it's clear for our records.

Yes, Your Honor.

You may proceed, counsel for the respondent.

So you admit that after you subscribe and swear, Atty.

January 30, 2025 affidavit, you added documents to it so that it would comply with the requirements of the DOJ. Is that what you're saying?

Attachments based on the requirement of the DOJ, sir.

All right. Thank you for that admission.

Just one last point on this. Can we flash the affidavit of investigation?

investigation? Flash page 1. This is page 13, Your Honor, of the AOI's Annex G-9, for the benefit or for the guidance of this honorable Court. The one that was flashed earlier. Tech is instructed to do so.

Alright, so this is the first page of the affidavit of investigation. Will you agree with me that this was not received by this particular document as is was not

received by the DOJ? I don't have personal knowledge. Ang inutusan ko po dyan, yung executive officers and agent on case na makipag-communicate sa Department of Justice. But you are a co-signer of this, correct? Yeah, insofar as the content of the affiliation.

Alright. And you mean to say that you didn't cause the filing of this case with the DOJ?

Inutusan ko po ang executive officers at si Agent Trilong na sila mag-process po na dalhin yung referral na yan sa Department of Justice, sir.

At any rate, You're smart enough to peruse the first page and you can see that there's no received stamp appearing there too, correct?

Received from DOJ or by DOJ? By DOJ. Again, ang makakasagot niyan, yung nag-process niyan, si Executive Officer nga namin. But based on

only... Again, the witness is still in the process of answering the question.

Counsel, take it easy. Let the witness complete his answer.

Okay, Your Honor. But based as it appears only, as it appears on this document... This is part of the records and also uploaded in the Senate website already last July 12 so that the public can peruse. Annex GGG, this is page 13. Based on this document and observation, can you notice any received stamp on this document?

Based on that document, wala akong naka-stamped or received. Precisely

my point, that this was attached, if this was really received by the DOJ, there should have been an IDF, right, or a transmittal letter attached to this. Again, yung makakasagot po niyan, yung executive officers, Agent Kalilong, and the

prosecution, sir. Kasi sila wang nag-uusap siyan. Sila ang nagdala ng dokumento na yan.

Alright, I'll move on to a new point.

Now, Article 4 of... Hi.

What is the pleasure of Senator Judge Pia Cayetano?

Mr. President, I wanted to take the floor before the defense went to another point so I wouldn't interrupt his train of thought. The

lady has two minutes and may proceed when she's ready.

Thank you, Mr. President. My question is actually addressed to both counsels and to the witness.

Yes, ma'am.

So the witness also happens to be a lawyer. Apat na abogado po tayo mag-uusap dito.

Pero ang pakiusap ko, speak in layman's terms because we want the public to understand. Very simple question. I want to understand your appreciation of the crime of great threats. Okay? It sounds like a simple question but when I look at the elements, so explain ko din sa mga nakikinig.

Pag tinignan natin ang definition ng crime, So the prosecution must always prove yung elements of the crime. Ang

question ko ay, in your appreciation, dapat ba na ang supposed victim nakaramdam talaga siya ng threats? Or is it enough that the general public considers the statement threatening? Okay, so is it personal or is it a general sentiment? Now, before I proceed, gusto ko magbigay ng example para maintindihan ang mga kababayan natin. Kung magkapit-bahay, nagkapikunan dun sa bakod, tapos sabi nung isa, bubulohin ko to. Is that a grave threat? Second example, dalawang boksingero, nagka-initan, susuntukin kita. This is among two professional boxers. Is that a grave threat? Third example, police.

Sabi, bubunutan ko to ng barel. Is that a grave threat? Maybe it's just offensive. Dahil sa professional life, you shouldn't say that to a fellow police. And my fourth example is a senator. Pag sinabi niyang bibit-biting kita, kekwelyuhan kita, palalayasan kita, is that a grave threat? I'll add some details. If that is supposedly addressed to a fellow senator and she is a female senator like me, na kahit na hindi naman isa hung kilalang runner, marathoner, but a non-violent person, is that a grave threat? Well, I'll just tell you my personal opinion and then I'll tell you now. I felt that was a grave threat. So may I ask the counsel and the witness to now answer the question. Thank you.

If you may, Your Honor, please.

Your prosecution, po. Sen. Judge Pia, who do you want to answer first?

Good question. Pag-iisipan ko ng matagal yan, Mr. President. I give you the decision on that one, Mr. President. Siguro prosecution kasi sila naman ang kailangan mag-prove ng case nila. And then the witness and then the defense counsel.

Again, an admonition from the chair. Without stating conclusions of fact and law that again is reserved for the impeachment court, you may state your opinions with respect to... The elements of the crime of grave threats specifically identified by the Senator-Judge. And

if I may, Presiding Officer, feel free to interrupt them if you feel that they have crossed the line, as I will. That's why

I just want, I repeat my question, I want to understand your appreciation of the crime. You may...

Ano, Mr. President? Will we allow them to cite jurisprudence? I leave it up to you. I just want to understand the appreciation kasi. What do you think?

Doon sa particular pong katanungang yun ni Sen. Judge Pia Cayetano na dapat ba may takot na naramdaman? Correct me if I'm wrong, Sen. Judge Pia? Yes. Yun taong tinatakot o subject matter ng grave threats o pampublikong pagtanggap pa na nakakatakot yung mga sinabi niya laban doon sa... Taong tinatakot niya.

Siguro, a simple yes or no with a very short explanation would suffice, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Atty. Ligutan, you have two

minutes. Maraming

salamat sa Sen. Pia Caetano. Maraming salamat sa pagkakataon. Yung sagot sa tanong na iyan, yung sagot po ng prosecution, hindi po galing sa opinion ng aking mga kasama, ito po ay isang decision. No less than the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It just so happened, Your Honors, as an answer, in answer po sa tanong ni Sen. Pia Caetano, may dalawang kaso na po yung Supreme Court. Yung isa is paera versus people. Yung GR number, siguro yung mga law students, no? Mga law students? GR number 181626, May 30, 2011. The title is paera versus people. Sinabi ng Supreme Court doon.

Wala pong batas.

na nagre-require na may private complainant. Ibig sabihin, hindi po required na iyong biktima mag-execute ng affidavit upang iyong akusado po ay puwedeng ma-found guilty ng grave threats. Paera v. People. But more than that, Your Honor, please. May isang kaso pa. No less than the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Sinabi roon, hindi po kailangan

na iyong recipient mismo nakaramdam ng takot or that sineryoso iyong pagbabanta, Your Honor. To repeat, itong sinabi ng Supreme Court: all that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect. Iyong sagot sa tanong, hindi po galing sa prosecution, hindi po opinion, galing mismo sa Supreme Court of the Philippines.

My memory aid correctly. There are only certain private crimes that need a private complainant. And most of these are personal crimes such as concubinage, adultery, seduction, abduction, rape, and acts of lasciviousness. Although these crimes are all entitled people of the Philippines versus the accused, without a private complainant, these crimes cannot be filed by the prosecutor. In court without the cooperation or affidavit of the private complainant. Counsel for respondent will please reply to the query of Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano. You also have two minutes, sir.

All right. I will try to avoid making conclusions of fact and law, Your Honor, but I will answer in light of the facts of this case and leave it up to the discretion of this honorable court. It is our position. That the statements made by the Vice President were not threats in the first place. That's why we were categorizing it as a mere response to a Q&A, number one. Number two, it was never aimed directly at BBM, FL, and the former Speaker.

In other words, had they not watched the video, for example, they wouldn't have known about it.

So in other words, Your Honor,

there was

no threats to begin with. And so even the discussion on the elements is not really applicable insofar as determining the innocence or guilt.

of the vice president that is basically our position that is one more thing and practically we uh maintain this position all throughout our pleadings we never uh referred to that statement as threats we always say that if at all they were alleged threats but we referred to the statements of the vice president as statements as responses and even in my speech that's what i said

It was a response, Your Honor. That would be all, yeah.

Noted. Atty. Lotoc, your response to Sen. Judge Pia's question based on your investigation. You may proceed, sir.

Yes, Your Honor. In establishing, Your Honor, whether or not the crime of great threat exists, we follow the rule.

First, whether there is an actus reus, and then second, whether there is a mens rea. So, actus reus, Your Honor, means whether the offender, in fact, uttered the threatening remarks. We were able to establish that. That's why inauthenticate po ng NBI yung video na kung saan nandoon yung utterances. The test of mens rea, Your Honor, what we did, we interpret the utterances objectively. And in the light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, in the manner in which those appearances were spoken, the person to whom they were addressed, the appearances were addressed, the relationship between the parties, meaning the offender and the recipients, and then the reactions of the recipients, whether they treat the The utterance is serious or real. But again, I would agree with what Atty.

In fact, ang basis po namin diyan, iyong Garma v. People. Ang isa po doon sa sinabi ng Garma v. People, hindi ho kailangan na ma-intimidate o itrato ng recipient na seryoso iyong threat na iyan. Ang sufficient na maipakita lang na iyon iyong intention ng offender: to intimidate and to treat seriously the utterances or threatening remarks na ginawa niya. Iyon po is iyong naging basihan po namin, Your Honor.

I hope that satisfies Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano.

It actually does, but if I still have time, I have a follow-up question for all.

Well, anyway, everyone went overtime, so since my bell hasn't rung—

No, you don't, but you can ask your final question, ma'am.

Just a quick follow-up.

Siguro sa witness na lang. You mentioned the word threat, no? So, can you just elaborate on that? What to you would be the difference between a threat?

A threat and a... Sorry,

sorry. I don't know if you uttered the word that I want to ask you now. But you referred to threat, of course. What would be the difference between a mere warning and a threat?

A mere warning and a threat. At

what point does a warning become a threat?

Well, Your Honor, if I'm going to... Based on our investigation, kung i-apply ko yung—

Ah, hindi na?

You don't

have to. Just asking your legal opinion. You're a lawyer. Di may answer? Is it not correct, Mr. President?

I think— If

he knows? Just

in my own opinion, although— Warning

is maybe there is a— What we call an event-based condition. Pwedeng ganon na— Pag inulit mo ito, itong gagawin ko sa'yo. Pwede hong warning yon.

Diba ganun din yung threat? Yung threat, Your Honor, pag ang threat is with a condition, pwede ho siyang mag-fall ng ganun. Pag sinabi ng threat is, pag ginawa mo ito, ito ang gagawin ko sa'yo, papatayin kita, papatayin ko yung pamilya mo, papatayin ko yung ganyan. So para siyang nag-overlap, depende sa appreciation for us, ng investigator.

Your Honor, but in so far as the NBI Cybercrime Division is concerned, what we did is we established the elements of the great threats based on the surrounding facts and circumstances and then we conclude that indeed nag-violate ho ang ating Vice Presidente.

Atty. Lotoc, warning in Filipino is babala.

Yes. Opo.

Threat in Filipino is banta.

Yes. Opo. Opo.

Kaya diba babala, bawal magtapon ng basura dito.

Pwede po yun, Sir.

Diba? Ang tanong ni Sen. Rupia, kailan nagiging banta yun?

Well, ito depende sa konteksto siguro, Your Honor. May warning din po kasi na I warned you. I warn you, sinasabi ko, pag inulit mo ito, ito ang mangyayari sa'yo. May konteksto na ganun, Your Honor, na somehow nag-overlap siya doon sa elements ng great threats na conditional, na sinabi na pag ito ang nangyari, ito ang gagawin ko sa'yo. So, depende sa konteksto, Your Honor.

So, depende sa konteksto, sa delivery, sa taas ng boses, gaano kagalit, may kapasidad.

Yes, po.

Yes, po, your honor.

Senator Judge Villa?

Yeah, so in other words, it depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident or the time that

the utterance

was made.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so laging contextual. Okay, maraming salamat sa lahat. I just want to emphasize na, Mr. Presiding Officer, I posted my question to each of the councils and the witness precisely so that tayo masabihan na may bias. Isa lang yung binibigyan natin ng opportunity to explain their side. I really genuinely just wanted to know what their appreciation of the definition of grave threats is. Thank you so much.

We thank the good Senator Judge for intervention. All of the comments are noted.

Council for the Respondent. Proceed with your cross when you're ready.

Alright, I'll move on to a new point. Now, Article 4 of the Articles of Impeachment against VP Sara deals with three accusations. Number one, contracting for the assassination. Number two, making grave threats. And number three, actively inciting sedition. So, on page 28 of your Affidavit of Investigation, which is page 40 of Annex G9 again, you recommended— Only one count of inciting to sedition and three counts of grave threats. You confirm this?

Yes, sir.

Alright. And the three counts of grave threats were for BBM, FL, and the former speaker? Yes, sir. My next question is very simple. Did you include any charge relating to contracting for the assassination?

Relating to contracting for the assassination? No, sir. Yung charge namin is grave threats, inciting prostitution, and on that grave threat, doon po pumasok yung appearances na may kinontrata ang vice-presidente.

Alright. So, pinagsama niyo na lahat. Even yung contracting assassin, sinama niyo na sa grave threats. According to you now?

You know ang basis ng grave threats namin. Alright.

In fact, let's go to page 13 of the...

Affidavit of Investigations G9. We flashed it on the screen.

There. It says, 1 count of inciting to sedition and 3-1. So, 3 na 1 count of grave threats. So, ano

to? Ah, typo na. Alright. Typographical error na naman. Alright. So, with all these mga...

Mga infirmities, and you mentioned yesterday that your case is airtight. Don't you think that these errors constituted violations of due process?

Your Honor, the

existence of these typographical errors does not alter the fact that the video exists, does not alter the fact that the Vice President uttered those statements, does not alter the fact na ang NBI merong findings at ang findings nila The Vice President committed the crime of great threats and inciting to sedition.

Okay. Now, inciting to sedition punishes someone who incites others to overthrow the government. Is that accurate? Who incites others.

Alright. Now,

it has been over one and a half years since VP Sara's speech. My question is, has the government been overthrown following her speech?

Again, as I've said, As I've explained that, Your Honor, it is not necessary to be a seditious... Your Honor, can we

ask that the

witness answers in

a more responsive manner? Witness, kindly,

attorney to talk, kindly answer the question directly so that the court's time is not wasted.

Again, any questions, sir?

Has the government been overthrown following VP Sara's speech? Not necessary, sir.

No.

No, it's not necessary, sir.

Has any agency or department of the government been overthrown following her speech?

Not necessary, sir. No. Alright.

Now, I am showing you a news article entitled, 'Palace Dismisses Destab Rumors vs. Marcos Admin.' This was marked as our D-4-66. If I may ask my co-counsel to confront the witness with this.

We may do so, with the participation, if he so desires, of assisting counsel for the prosecutors.

the benefit of this honorable court as well as the people watching, we also flashed that news article. So based on this article, you confirmed that Claire Castro speaks on behalf of BBM.

I don't have personal knowledge on that event, sir.

Alright, that's okay. But based on her statement in this news article or title, Do you confirm that there has been no destabilization efforts against BBM?

Again, I don't have personal knowledge on that statement made by Atty. Claire Castro.

Okay, that's okay. I'm showing you another recent article. June 12, 2026. This has been marked, Your Honor, as our D-4-67. Can we confront the witness and show also the document on screen?

Before the good counsel proceed, can I make a manifestation? Again, these documents have yet to be authenticated. So, for the record, it's like presenting these documents without...

without proper basis and proper authentication, which I do believe should have been done before a witness is confronted with these documents. As per our rules, Your Honor.

It's not an objection, counsel for the respondent. The remarks and comments of counsel for the prosecutors are noted.

But counsel, for clarity, this is a pre-marked exhibit for the respondent, correct? You may proceed, sir.

So again, based on this, just your basic reading of this,

Sara Duterte, 'I won't grab Marcos' position.' Is this news article consistent also with the previous article that no destabilization efforts are present against the government?

Again, I don't have personal knowledge, sir.

Can I make a counter-manifestation order? This is dated June 12, 2026, two years after the event. Manifestation, Your Honor, please. Two years after the Vice President uttered the threats.

Noted. Councilman proceed.

Okay. I want to talk about the discussion in your affidavit of investigation. I want to go through it very quickly but the affidavit of investigation is also marked as our D-1-145-A. You mentioned in your affidavit of investigation the case of Garma v. People, correct?

Yes, sir.

Alright. And you cited the doctrine of this case, correct?

Yes, sir. Were you

the one who typed that portion in your revised affidavit of investigation?

I'm the one who typed? Yes. Being the chief, sir, inuutos ko yung executive officers. But did you read the case in full?

Yes, I think, pero not thoroughly. Isang basahan lang.

Now, was there a video recording involved in that case? No. Did that case include a public official like the vice president? In fact, it involved a group of three farmers, correct?

Yes, sir.

Alright, let's go to the case of Reyes v. People. You also cited that page 29 of your affidavit of investigation. Did you read this case in full? If I may check my affidavit,

Your Honor? The witness may do so. Okay,

sir. Did you read this

case in full?

Yes, Your Honor. Did

you read the facts of this case?

I think it's about yung threat against a person nung nasa Navy office siya and then sinuntan siya hanggang sa bahay. May dalang mga placard. Yun yata yun, Sir.

All right, but did it involve a video recording?

No, Sir.

Did it involve an official like the Vice President?

No, Sir.

You cited the Ruaza versus People, page 29. Did you read this case in full?

Ruaza. Yes, sir.

You read the case. Did it involve, again, a video recording?