July 14, 2026

The sitting resumed Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc's testimony under his prior oath with the continuation of the respondent's cross-examination.

Cross-examination replayed portions of the November 23, 2024 press conference and tested whether Lotoc could confirm the truth of the matters described, the NBI's treatment of reported threats to the Vice President, and the referral's documentary process.

After a recess, the court confirmed that Lotoc remained under the same oath and recognized prosecution counsel for redirect examination.

On redirect, the prosecution replayed the President's recorded reaction and a November 26 recording of the Vice President, then identified an NBI letter about compliance with Department of Justice requirements and moved to have it marked.

The court recognized respondent's counsel for recross. Before excusing Lotoc, the Presiding Officer clarified that admission against interest under the Rules is an exception to hearsay and should not automatically be treated as a confession.

The prosecution announced that it would no longer call Atty. Zuleika Lopez or Capt. Belinda Bello, describing Lopez's proposed proof as already covered and Bello's proposed testimony as corroborative.

The chair calendared the bank/AMLC-record and BIR-record subpoena requests for joint oral argument at the next sitting, followed by caucus and plenary proceedings.

The court sustained an objection on competency grounds and limited Lotoc to the fact and tenor of statements in the November 23 recording, rather than the truth of the matters stated.

The chair sustained a vague-question objection during cross-examination and directed defense counsel to reform the question.

The chair warned both sides to avoid side remarks and said future side remarks and questions posed and then withdrawn would be stricken from the record.

When allowing counsel and Lotoc to discuss the elements of grave threats, the chair expressly reserved conclusions of fact and law to the Impeachment Court.

The court overruled the defense objection to asking Lotoc for his impression of the Vice President's emotional state in the November 26 recording and allowed him to answer if he knew.

The court denied the defense motion to strike Lotoc's interpretation, left the answer in the record for whatever purpose it might serve, and left its weight to the senator-judges.

The court allowed redirect questioning about inter-agency coordination even though defense counsel said the subject arose from a senator-judge rather than the cross-examination.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano pressed Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc on the NBI's conclusion that the President, Speaker, and others had been gravely threatened. He asked why a conditional statement-if Vice President Duterte were killed, the three would be killed-would make them feel threatened absent a plan against her. Lotoc said the NBI saw a risk that other groups could exploit a Vice President's death and blame the three; Cayetano countered that law enforcement should instead focus on protecting the Vice President and questioned the causal logic of treating the statement as a threat against the others.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo pressed Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc on the NBI's attribution of the term "Romanov." He recalled Mayor Sebastian "Baste" Duterte's Maisug-rally reference to the Romanovs and asked who the warning was meant to reach. Lotoc said he remembered it as a warning about what could happen to the First Family and that the NBI could not validate a separate Operation Romanov; in the bureau's investigation, the term began with Mayor Duterte. Tulfo returned after cross-examination to underscore that he understood the warning as one from Mayor Duterte to the First Family, which Lotoc agreed was correct.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc how the NBI treated Princess Maui's claim of a "Romanov" threat against Vice President Sara Duterte. Lotoc said the bureau checked open sources after hearing it and found that Mayor Sebastian "Baste" Duterte had used the term earlier at a Maisug rally. Tulfo then tested the intelligence value of the claim and the bureau's validation method. Because Princess Maui did not appear to substantiate it, Lotoc said the NBI treated the information as unvalidated; its counter-source search instead indicated that Mayor Duterte's reference had been directed at the President. He ultimately agreed that the claim was not reliable for the Cybercrime Division.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano cautioned senator-judges against drawing a definite conclusion from Mayor Baste Duterte's Romanov remark. Reading it against the 1986 revolution, he distinguished a warning from an actual threat and said the relation between the word "Romanov" and the alleged Oplan Romanov remained uncertain. He urged equal fairness to the First Family and the Dutertes while each senator-judge assessed the statement.

After the Chair recognized him, Sen. Christopher Bong Go examined Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc's NBI and cybercrime assignments. Lotoc corrected Go's understanding that he had served 20 years, saying he joined the NBI in 2014, and said he became regional director in July 2025. He said he became Cybercrime Division head in February 2023 after work in digital forensics, anti-organized crime and transnational crime, and the Cybercrime Division, and that then-NBI director Medardo J. DeLemos had designated him to the leadership posts. He then questioned the NBI's proof of what occurred at the November 23 online press conference. He asked why reporters and vloggers who attended had not supplied their own sworn affidavits and whether the agents' account instead rested on second-hand interviews. Lotoc said the media participants appeared with counsel, who advised them not to execute affidavits, but they agreed to interviews; he said the interview was recorded in meeting minutes and that the NBI authenticated and transcribed the full video to check the agents' account against what was actually said. He also challenged the NBI's inciting-to-sedition theory, asking how it squared with the Vice President's discouraging supporters from taking to the streets and whether she had done anything that could amount to the offense. Lotoc said actual sedition need not occur if words tend to encourage unlawful action or undermine public order. He said the NBI's finding came from comparing the Vice President's October 18 and November 23 remarks and her later November 26 video, which it regarded as a consistent pattern of statements tending to stir people against the government.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano asked the prosecution, defense, and Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc for a lay explanation of grave threats: must the intended victim actually feel fear, or can the offense turn on the threatening nature of a statement more generally? She used contextual examples involving neighbors, boxers, police officers, and a senator, and said she would personally regard the last hypothetical as a grave threat. The prosecution said a private complainant and actual fear by the recipient were not required if the accused intended an intimidating effect. The defense maintained that Vice President Duterte's statements were responses in a Q&A, not direct threats to the President, First Lady, or former Speaker. Lotoc said the NBI assessed both the utterance and intent objectively from the surrounding circumstances, including delivery, addressee, relationship, and recipients' reactions; he agreed the recipient need not actually have been intimidated if the intent to intimidate was established. She then asked Lotoc to distinguish a warning from a threat as a legal concept rather than apply it to the case. Lotoc said an event-based or conditional warning can overlap with a conditional threat, so the distinction depends on context. After the Chair underscored factors such as delivery, tone, anger, and capacity, Cayetano summed up the answer as contextual.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo challenged Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc's basis for filing an inciting-to-sedition case over Vice President Sara Duterte's October and November statements. Lotoc said the NBI assessed whether the speeches could steer people against the government, disturb public peace, or undermine public safety, initially pointing to statements by agencies charged with national security. Tulfo asked whether it was government or public alarm that mattered, then probed the news and social-media comments used as evidence of public concern. He distinguished people merely worrying from supporters calling for action and elicited that reactions in those comments had been factored into the filing. Lotoc said the bureau had seen Facebook comments urging people to storm Malacañang, though those comments were not included in the investigation or authenticated.

Sen. Loren Legarda examined whether the NBI's affidavit gave a complete account of the circumstances before Vice President Duterte's November 23 press conference. She pointed to its reference to unpleasant circumstances, including events involving Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez's contempt and detention, a medical emergency, and a planned transfer to the Correctional Institute for Women shortly before the press conference. Lotoc said those matters were considered, along with the October 18 statement, and that the affidavit of transcription and authenticated video supplied the context; he maintained that the circumstances did not alter the NBI's conclusion because the alleged killing instruction predated the emotional situation. Legarda asked why the affidavit itself did not set out fuller factual findings, whether the NBI had investigated related events at Veterans Medical Center, and whether media interviews covered the participants' emotional state and atmosphere. Lotoc said his division focused on the alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition, did not know the complete facts of the other incident, and said those questions were not in the media-interview Q&A. Legarda said the affidavit appeared to offer snapshots rather than the complete context needed to assess the utterances.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked why the NBI had characterized Vice President Sara Duterte's statements as inciting to sedition rather than propaganda. Lotoc said the bureau applied the offense's elements, including whether the speeches could disturb the community or undermine public safety and order. He said it also considered the reactions of government agencies and the President, as well as public comments, in assessing what he described as an active national-security threat.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked whether the withdrawal of some Vice President Duterte security personnel could have led her to perceive a threat to her life. He pressed Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc on who ordered the change, why it occurred, whether protection had been reduced, and whether Duterte sought replacement personnel. Lotoc said news reports indicated that 75 PNP personnel were reassigned to Manila for a peace-and-order need and that about 335 personnel remained; he said the NBI found no apparent criminal violation. Lotoc did not know the usual security complement for a vice president and had not seen reports that Duterte protested the 75-person transfer or sought augmentation, but agreed the change could have shaped the perception of Duterte or her supporters.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano drilled Lotoc on whether the NBI had evaluated the November 23 video consistently. After confirming that Lotoc had watched its full two-hour recording once, Cayetano sought an account of every admission against the Vice President's interest. Lotoc repeatedly located admissions in the November 26 video or said he did not know, before identifying the alleged killing instruction as one. Cayetano then tested purported admissions involving the DepEd distribution and the people-power remarks and the principle that an admission should be read in context; he argued that accepting isolated words as admissions required crediting the accompanying accusations and exculpatory statements as well, and pressed why the NBI's evaluation did not do so. He then asked why the alleged threat was referred to Cybercrime rather than anti-terrorism or intelligence channels. He contrasted the electronic medium with a possible assassination plot and argued that, if validated, preventing harm to the President should take priority. Lotoc said the online utterance gave Cybercrime jurisdiction and that validation remained necessary; he did not accept Cayetano's premise that an assassination plot had already been established.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked whether the Court would decide the subpoena requests immediately after the following day's oral arguments despite the parties' roughly 60 pages of memoranda. He did not seek to delay arguments, but said senator-judges needed time to assess questions including definiteness, fishing-expedition concerns, and the requested records' scope. He proposed caucusing after the arguments and postponing any vote at least overnight or to the weekend; when Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian suggested a 10 a.m. caucus, Cayetano pressed for after oral arguments because the presentations could resolve questions. He also urged the Court to give the parties more time for oral argument on the subpoena requests-15 or 20 minutes each and more time for rebuttal-so their presentations could clarify the line between a fishing expedition and a definite request before senator-judges spoke.

The prosecution offered to stipulate that the Vice President uttered the statements shown in the November 23 recording, and later objected when confirmation that the statements were uttered was recast as confirmation that the underlying allegations were true.

Prosecution counsel argued that a grave-threats case did not require the recipient personally to feel fear if the threatening effect was intended.

On redirect, the prosecution treated the November 26 statement as a reiteration and characterized the Vice President's exchange with the unnamed person as a contract; the defense disputed that terminology.

On redirect, the prosecution characterized the subpoena date, signature, and docket-number issues as typographical or documentary discrepancies that did not alter the core video evidence or NBI findings.

The prosecution argued that the impeachment question was whether the alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition also constituted a constitutional violation, high crime, or betrayal of public trust, rather than only whether they were ordinary criminal offenses.

The prosecution said Lopez's proposed testimony was unnecessary in light of the existing record and Bello's proposed testimony was corroborative, and announced that it would no longer call either witness.

The defense's express position was that the Vice President's statements were not threats, were a response during a question-and-answer exchange, and were not aimed directly at the President, First Lady, or former Speaker.

The defense challenged Lotoc's personal knowledge, distinguishing proof that a statement was made from proof that the people, events, or alleged agreement described in it actually existed.

The defense challenged what it portrayed as unequal investigative treatment, contrasting subpoenas issued to the Vice President as respondent with the absence of comparable subpoenas concerning reported threats against her.

The defense questioned whether later attachments cured procedural deficiencies, why the first affidavit was not produced, and why the displayed copy lacked a Department of Justice received stamp.

On inciting to sedition, the defense elicited Lotoc's acknowledgment that the press conference contained no direct instruction to overthrow the government and characterized the Vice President's remarks as protected opinion.

The defense objected to the prosecution's use of the word "contracted," saying the Vice President had not used that word and that treating the exchange as a contract was counsel's legal conclusion.

On recross, the defense emphasized that the Department of Justice certification concerned preliminary-investigation sufficiency rather than a final verdict.

Lotoc testified that he could confirm that the Vice President uttered the statements shown in the November 23 recording, but he did not personally know the factual circumstances described in them.

A November 23 recording played during cross included the Vice President saying that she had spoken to a person and instructed that person to kill the President, First Lady, and former Speaker if she were killed, followed by the recorded statement that the person said yes.

The November 26 recording played on redirect included the Vice President explaining that, in the context of concern for her security, she had asked a person to take revenge if she died.

Lotoc testified that the Cybercrime Division believed the Vice President had spoken to someone because of her November 23 and November 26 statements, but had no additional evidence identifying or establishing that person's existence.

Lotoc testified that neither the President, First Lady, nor former Speaker was subpoenaed or appeared before the NBI.

For inciting to sedition, Lotoc said the Cybercrime Division compared the October 18, November 23, and November 26 statements, but the cited Facebook comments were not included in the investigation or affidavit and the division had not focused on interviewing people about whether they were incited.

Lotoc testified that he personally watched the full two-hour November 23 video once and that the agent on the case performed the video review.

Lotoc testified that the Department of Justice identified missing requirements, the NBI supplied them, and the Department later certified compliance for preliminary investigation.

Lotoc stated the principal evidentiary limit: "Again, I do not know personally about the factual circumstances. What I know is that she uttered those statements."

Asked whether the Vice President directly urged the public to overthrow the government, Lotoc answered: "There was no such kind of a statement but there was a sort of tendency because of those utterances."

Lotoc described his personal review of the source this way: "Again, tinignan ko po ang video one time. Ang nag-review po ng video, yung agent on case."

The Cybercrime Division had no evidence beyond the Vice President's recorded statements identifying or independently establishing the existence of the unnamed person, according to Lotoc.

The cited social-media comments were not included in the NBI investigation or affidavit, and the Cybercrime Division had not focused on interviewing people about whether the statements incited them.

The Cybercrime Division classified the Operation Romanov information as unvalidated and had not obtained enough validated information to prepare an affidavit of investigation concerning threats to the Vice President.

The Impeachment Court had not adopted the NBI's conclusions on grave threats, inciting to sedition, or betrayal of public trust; the chair reserved conclusions of fact and law to the court.

The bank/AMLC-record and BIR-record subpoena requests remained pending for joint oral argument, caucus, and plenary proceedings at the next sitting.