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The chair warned both sides to avoid side remarks and said future side remarks and questions posed and then withdrawn would be stricken from the record.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

Alan Peter Cayetano questioned the logic of treating the recorded statement as a threat against the named principals when the stated condition was that Duterte first be killed.

Joel Villanueva, Panfilo Lacson, and Alan Peter Cayetano examined the NBI's handling of reported threats against Duterte and competing interpretations of remarks referring to the Romanovs.

Pia Cayetano asked the parties and witness to explain the elements of grave threats in ordinary terms and used hypotheticals to test how context affected the analysis.

Sherwin Gatchalian and Raffy Tulfo questioned what evidence showed actual incitement or a public response to the statements, rather than only the statements themselves.

Loren Legarda said the NBI affidavit appeared incomplete because it did not set out the events leading to the press conference or the broader context in which the statements were made.

Alan Peter Cayetano questioned the prosecution's reliance on admission against interest and asked whether the full video supplied context missing from selected passages.

Alan Peter Cayetano and Sherwin Gatchalian proposed allowing time for questions and caucus before the court decided the pending subpoena requests.

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.

The prosecution's redirect framed the subpoena date, signature, and docket-number issues as typographical or documentary discrepancies that did not alter the core video evidence or the NBI's 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, whether documents were added after execution, 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,' maintaining that 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 that division had no additional evidence identifying or establishing the existence of that person.

Lotoc testified that neither the President, First Lady, nor former Speaker was subpoenaed or appeared before the NBI, although the bureau concluded from other evidence that they were victims of grave threats.

For inciting to sedition, Lotoc said the Cybercrime Division compared the Vice President's October 18, November 23, and November 26 statements and considered social-media reactions, but he acknowledged that the cited Facebook comments were not included in the investigation or affidavit and that his 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 review of the video.

Lotoc testified that the Department of Justice first identified missing requirements, the NBI supplied them, and the Department later certified compliance for preliminary investigation; he expressly denied describing that certification as a final verdict.

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.