July 13, 2026

Before testimony began, the prosecution asked to present NBI Director Melvin Matibag the next day because of an overseas law-enforcement summit. After objections about notice and preparation, the chair deferred a ruling and requested Matibag's letter and any travel authority for court review.

The prosecution called Jeremy Lotoc as its second witness. After he was sworn, counsel offered his testimony to explain and authenticate the NBI investigation and its related affidavit, annexes, and videos.

Lotoc described the bureau's digital-evidence process and investigative assessment. The prosecution then played recordings from October 18 and November 23 that had been previously marked, after the court directed verification and supervised unsealing.

After direct examination, the chair recognized a series of senator-judges for questions. Following a recess, the court resumed with Lotoc under the same oath and continued senator-judge questioning.

Before cross-examination, Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano made a manifestation distinguishing the recorded phrase that the Vice President had spoken to someone from the prosecution's characterization that she had contracted an assassin. The chair expressly noted that this was a manifestation, not a question, and then recognized respondent's counsel for cross-examination.

Cross-examination focused on the Justice Department's initial case-build-up requirement, the later NBI submission, receiving dates and docket markings, interview records, and the preparation of agent affidavits.

The court stopped for the evening without curtailing the defense's allotted cross-examination. Lotoc was excused subject to the existing subpoena and directed to return under the same oath; the court later adjourned until 2 p.m. on July 14.

For the October 18 video, the chair directed counsel for both sides to verify together that the USB played was the same previously marked exhibit. For the November 23 video, the court ordered supervised unsealing in the witness's presence and with defense counsel observing.

The chair placed on record that the marked February 10 affidavit of investigation did not itself contain the annexes it referenced, without prejudice to annexes marked separately.

When prosecution counsel asked whether the Vice President committed a crime, the chair sustained the objection and reformulated the question to ask only whether the NBI had prima facie evidence sufficient to file a complaint, expressly distinguishing that threshold from a judicial determination that an offense was committed.

During cross-examination, the chair allowed questions about documents included in the prosecutors' complaint when Lotoc had personal knowledge, but sustained an objection to questions about a Justice Department document and said a DOJ witness would be needed.

The chair sustained an objection when defense counsel asked whether a date discrepancy demonstrated that a document had been tampered with and directed counsel to move to the next topic. The ruling did not establish either tampering or authenticity.

Without objection, the court approved a subpoena for Director Matibag to appear at 2 p.m. on July 20. If his testimony was not finished that day, it would continue on a later trial date through cross-examination, redirect, and any recross.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo questioned defense lawyer Mark C. Vinluan about the Operation Romanov allegation used to characterize Vice President Sara Duterte’s response as justified. Vinluan confirmed he meant the scenario raised by blogger Princess Maui but said the defense’s decision whether to call her would depend on the prosecution’s evidence; he said other witnesses could be part of its evidence in chief but would not identify them then. Tulfo also asked whether the term connected what Mayor Sebastian Duterte, Maui and the defense had said. Vinluan said he lacked personal knowledge of the mayor’s statement and had not seen it. Asked why the response was “unconventional,” Vinluan said the word described the Vice President’s press-conference statements and offered no further explanation.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano said he would not object to moving NBI Director Melvin Matibag's testimony, but warned against making a government official's outside commitment dictate the witness order. He said abrupt changes could leave senator-judges unable to prepare for a witness they had not expected that week, asked the court to apply its notice rule, and said accommodation should not become the practice.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian supported Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano's concern that senator-judges needed time to prepare for any late-added witness. He said senators were already studying thousands of pages of uploaded evidence and preparing questions, and that a surprise witness would leave them unable to read the associated documents or question the witness properly.

Sen. Panfilo "Ping" M. Lacson asked whether the notes Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc repeatedly consulted were an investigator's notebook or merely copies of affidavits. Lotoc said he was referring to copies of the affidavits of investigation. Lacson then asked whether Lotoc himself had made the notes or records during the investigation; Lotoc said he had.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino asked whether any NBI unit beyond the Cybercrime Division had investigated the Vice President's November 23-to-24 utterances, and whether the bureau had pursued the person she was said to have engaged to kill the President, First Lady, and former Speaker. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc said the Cybercrime Division and its then-team had handled the matter, and that subpoenas and interviews produced no validated or confirmed information identifying the alleged person. Aquino noted that the NBI nevertheless took the Vice President's words literally despite not finding that person; Lotoc said her status, anger, and emphatic language made the statement serious. Aquino then pressed the defense on whether it had actually denied that she spoke to someone. Atty. Mark C. Vinluan said it did deny that allegation, would present counter-evidence, and maintained that the answer contained general and specific denials; Aquino said he would examine the record and return to the point if needed.

Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" Ejercito asked whether the NBI could subpoena an impeachable official rather than merely invite the Vice President. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc cited Republic Act No. 10867 and said the matter fell within the bureau's primary investigative jurisdiction. Ejercito also asked what makes a threat grave rather than light and whether a condition changes that analysis. Lotoc said grave threats involve a threatened wrong amounting to a crime against a person, property, honor or family, with or without a condition or consideration. Testing Lotoc's experience, Ejercito asked about other grave-threat cases and his Cybercrime Division tenure. Lotoc could recall no other such case from his own NBI career, though he said other cases may have been investigated; he said he had been in the division since 2018 and led it from 2023.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked what findings gave the NBI a motive for the Vice President to threaten the President and two other officials, rather than treating the words as anger in the moment. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc cited the deteriorating relationship between the Vice President and the President and the surrounding October and November events. Tulfo asked whether the NBI found steps to carry out the alleged threats; Lotoc said the Cybercrime Division focused on grave threats and inciting to sedition, while intelligence personnel and the director held information on whether anyone had been engaged. Tulfo then asked how the NBI established inciting to sedition, whether it was intertwined with the alleged threats, and why the Vice President would incite revolt if she could seek the presidency. Lotoc said the October 18, November 23, and November 26 statements tended to stir people against the government and disturb public order, but said he had no personal knowledge of a deeper motive. Pressed for the strongest evidence and the case status, Lotoc described the referral as meeting the NBI's prima facie threshold with reasonable certainty of conviction, said the Justice Department had certified it for preliminary investigation, and said the case was ongoing. He told Tulfo he believed the case was airtight.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked whether an emotional setting or intense trigger affected the NBI's recommendation to file grave-threats and inciting-to-sedition cases against the Vice President. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc said the setting did not matter if the elements of grave threats were satisfied; he recited the elements and distinguished threats that were carried out, not carried out, or made without a condition. On the NBI's pre-referral process, he said it applied prima facie evidence and reasonable certainty of conviction, followed by legal evaluation and a legal-division referral, under principles of thoroughness and legality. Hontiveros then asked whether a contracted assassin had to be proven and whether a conditional statement could be a grave threat. Lotoc said proof of an assassin was unnecessary and threats could be made with or without a condition; citing a Supreme Court case, he said an event-based formulation could still be an absolute threat. He also said speech could cross into grave threats or inciting to sedition under the clear-and-present-danger or dangerous-tendency tests, with the latter asking whether it tended to create chaos or illegal acts.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked how the NBI determined that its investigation met the threshold of prima facie evidence with a reasonable certainty of conviction, despite the first and later reports. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc said the Justice Department's requirements were administrative and concerned admissibility attachments, not a change to the affidavit's substance. Villanueva asked whether the legal evaluation considered the Vice President's account as a conditional threat. Lotoc said the NBI subpoenaed and wrote her to obtain information about the asserted threat to her life, and agreed that the condition mattered. Villanueva also tested whether the absence of an identified alleged assassin made the threat noncredible and how the NBI assessed the three statements. Lotoc called the threat absolute, said the bureau applied mens rea and objectively examined the utterances in their context, and said its analysis considered intent, capability and motive; he cited the Vice President's office and the surrounding dispute, and agreed it was not a usual case.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo tested NBI official Jeremy C. Lotoc’s basis for treating a threat to Vice President Sara Duterte as real and imminent. After Lotoc described himself as an experienced investigator rather than a threat-assessment expert, Tulfo asked whom the NBI interviewed, whether Princess Maui was summoned, and whether its investigation could support a conclusion about a threat to the Vice President. Lotoc said it questioned media personalities about the person the Vice President allegedly hired; Princess Maui had reportedly been invited but did not appear; and the NBI asked the Vice President for leads but received none because she did not appear. Tulfo pressed the contact with the Vice President’s representative and the claimed threat six months earlier. Lotoc identified Attorney Paul Lawrence Lim as the representative but said a former NBI director spoke with him; the letter reported a six-month-old threat, while the NBI conducted an open-source inquiry and did not validate information beyond the removal and transfer of 75 security personnel. Lotoc ultimately declined to say whether a threat existed because no validated information confirmed it.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian asked whether Atty. Zuleika Lopez's statements were unrelated to the alleged threat by the Vice President. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc said the NBI considered them in its overall investigation and that, even before the Lopez situation, the Vice President's own words indicated she had spoken to someone. Gatchalian asked whether that meant a person had been contracted and whether the NBI had investigated an actual contract. Lotoc said the Cybercrime Division took the statement as credible, but that the director had formed a task force to investigate threats to the President and Lotoc was no longer part of it after moving to another region; the Intelligence Service and director held the relevant information. Gatchalian questioned why Lotoc was not on the task force and whether the NBI had coordinated with the national security and presidential-security agencies. Lotoc said regional offices could be tapped for information, while the Cybercrime Division's role was limited to the November 23 utterances and deeper intelligence gathering belonged to the Intelligence Service. Gatchalian urged a whole-of-agency response; Lotoc said the task force had tapped regional offices and that his region had a separate ongoing investigation into a threat to the President, with a person identified and further guidance pending.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked whether the NBI was investigating an alleged threat to the Vice President as well as her alleged threats to the President and others, or only whether the video showed a crime. He pressed Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc on whether the bureau had consulted the Presidential Security Command and the CIDG. Lotoc said he did not know about any Presidential Security Command correspondence, had not spoken to the CIDG, and described intelligence work as need-to-know. Cayetano said that left the investigation looking incomplete because it had not drawn on the other investigators' information.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano challenged the four NBI agents' February 10 affidavit of investigation and verification, asking whether it contained any factual error after they had signed it. Lotoc said the team had prepared the affidavit and called the reference to Duterte as Justice secretary a typo; Cayetano said confusing the Department of Justice with the Department of Education was a factual error, not a typo. He also tested the affidavit's treatment of the alleged threat as both conditional and absolute, questioned reliance on the SPO2 Hamata case because it turned on res judicata and double jeopardy, and asked whether a condition's legality mattered. Lotoc described the utterance as an event-based condition and said the law covered an unlawful condition regardless of its nature.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano pressed the NBI to identify whom the Vice President was said to believe would kill her and whom she was supposedly trying to persuade to kill the named officials. Lotoc said the bureau had issued a subpoena but had obtained no valid information identifying that person. Cayetano said the video instead identified the President, First Lady, and former Speaker as the people she blamed, and asked whether her words could have been self-defense against a perceived threat. Lotoc said he could not know her state of mind, though he said the investigation relied on the series of events. Cayetano also challenged a literal reading of the remarks and the affidavit's sedition theory, pointing to a passage he read as discouraging People Power; Lotoc said the assessment rested on the evidence gathered and the full statement.

Sen. Imee Marcos tested the NBI's investigation timeline, asking whether the Vice President's overnight Zoom interview, the instruction to investigate, and the affidavit's "on even date" entry all referred to November 23. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc placed the Director's instruction around midday that day, after the early-morning interview. Marcos then walked through the investigation's four phases and asked whether the NBI discovered the October 18 Office of the Vice President video during a fourth-phase research process. Lotoc said that discovery came instead during the third phase, analysis and attribution. Marcos challenged a November 6, 2024 subpoena to ABS-CBN for the October 18 press-conference video, which appeared to predate the NBI's stated November 23 instruction to investigate. She asked whether that meant the Vice President was already being monitored before the Zoom interview. Lotoc called the date a typo, cited a December 11 appearance date, and continued to say the November 6 subpoena entry was erroneous. Marcos said the subpoena and a related affidavit of investigation did not appear in the affidavit or annexes provided, noted that other cited media entries concerned the Zoom interview rather than ABS-CBN's October 18 recording, and asked what the correct date was. Prosecution counsel said the documents existed as separate pre-marked records but were not physically attached. Marcos then pointed to the same November 6 date in the affidavit and amended affidavit; Lotoc said he believed that too was a typo and could only say the intended dates should be consistent with the initial media subpoenas.

Returning to his distinction between a general and a specific denial, Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino asked Lotoc why the NBI treated the Vice President's alleged statement about speaking to a person as credible and whether later interviews contained a denial. Lotoc pointed to the surrounding atmosphere and her angry, emphatic delivery, and said a November 26 video instead reiterated that she had spoken to someone. Aquino asked the defense to identify where its answer specifically denied an actual contact with a hitman. Vinluan pointed to paragraphs 3 and 197, read their language, and maintained that it was a sufficient specific denial; he argued that the prosecution retained the burden of proof. Pressed for a final answer, Vinluan confirmed that the defense denied the Vice President had spoken to a hitman and did not adopt Lotoc's reading of her statement.

Sen. Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri asked whether Vice President Sara Duterte had publicly repudiated the disputed statements as a joke or mistake, rather than relying only on the defense's blanket denial. Atty. Mark C. Vinluan said the defense reserved the right to present that evidence at the proper time. Zubiri said a video or recording made near the time of the statements would weigh heavily in the court's assessment, because a denial first produced after the impeachment trial began could be after the fact, and asked the defense to present such evidence if it had it.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano clarified that Article IV could treat the Vice President's public threats as impeachable while still requiring a separate factual showing for the prosecution's allegation that she had contracted an assassin. He said the prosecution's use of "contracted" and "assassin" went beyond the Vice President's own words, which he described as saying only that she had spoken to someone.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo asked NBI official Jeremy C. Lotoc to explain his role in submitting the investigation data form to the Department of Justice after questions about its docketing, dating and subscription. Lotoc said he instructed executive officers and the case agent to file the referral, meet DOJ requirements and follow its guidance. Tulfo said any form errors should be answered by the receiving office, not Lotoc, whom he said was not the right witness for those questions. Tulfo asked when the NBI referral against the Vice President had been filed and why the Justice Department's preliminary investigation remained pending more than a year later. Lotoc said the NBI filed its initial affidavit on January 30, 2025, complied after the Justice Department required further case build-up, and resubmitted its affidavit in February; he said the matter was then for the Justice Department to process. Tulfo asked whether the NBI had sought an explanation for what remained missing and pointed to dating and subscription inconsistencies as signs the case may have been rushed. When he asked the prosecutors why they had not caught those defects, Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan said they had not prepared the documents and argued that the February 10 affidavit had addressed the requirements now pending before the Justice Department. Tulfo told the NBI that future filings should be airtight.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano traced the January 30 affidavit of investigation, the February 5 Justice Department certification and impeachment complaint, and the February 10 revised affidavit that addressed the Justice Department's stated insufficiencies. He argued that material dated February 3 could not have been an attachment to a January 30 affidavit. He then asked whether the affidavit had received input from the Presidential Security Group, the Presidential Security Command, the ESAF, the CIDG, or the National Security Council. Lotoc said the Cybercrime Division prepared the affidavit and those agencies had no input into it, while saying he did not know whether other agencies had separately corresponded with the NBI.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked whether either the Vice President's alleged statement or the NBI's recommendation had changed between the Department of Justice's February 5, 2025 certification and the DOJ's receipt of the completed affidavit of investigation. Lotoc said neither had changed.

Sen. Joseph Victor "JV" Ejercito questioned the NBI's follow-up after the Justice Department's February 5 certification said the bureau was not the proper offended party for a grave-threat complaint and referred the matter for case build-up. He asked why the NBI had not obtained affidavits or statements from the President, First Lady and former Speaker despite treating the parties' relationship as relevant to the threat. Lotoc said the NBI's referral ended its investigation and that a prosecutor would issue summons; the bureau relied on official Presidential Communications Office material and the former Speaker's plenary statement, and treated the President's video reaction as sufficient to begin its inquiry. Ejercito also tested the revised affidavit filed after the referral. Lotoc said prosecutors identify missing attachments during evaluation and case build-up, with investigators and prosecutors working together under the Department of Justice requirements. Ejercito closed by asking whether the Department had decided to file the case in court; Lotoc said the NBI had received no update and understood the matter remained in preliminary investigation.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III asked why the NBI had invited four media personalities rather than simply play the full press conference. Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc said the NBI's investigation showed they attended and participated in the press conference, and that their interviews were meant to establish whether the Vice President had made the statement that she had spoken to someone. Sotto then asked whether they had been present throughout; Lotoc said they had.

Sen. Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri proposed adjourning after a six-hour sitting and resuming the defense cross-examination at 2 p.m. the next day, saying counsel and senator-judges had not eaten and were tired. Defense counsel said the cross-examination was about halfway complete and accepted a continuance.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian proposed that NBI Director Melvin Matibag appear on Monday before attending the Bangkok regional summit on scam-center compounds and transnational organized crime the next day. He said the schedule would give senator-judges time to review the evidence and question Matibag, with a return appearance after the summit if his testimony was unfinished.

In its offer, the prosecution said Lotoc would explain the NBI's conclusion that the alleged threats were serious and real, the resulting filing of complaints alleging three grave-threats counts and one inciting-to-sedition count, and the related documentary and video material. This was the prosecution's account of the NBI result, not a court finding.

When the defense objected to the word 'assassin,' the prosecution responded that the Philippine National Police and Presidential Communications Office had used the term and said that was its basis. The exchange did not establish that the Vice President herself had used that word.

In the annex dispute, the prosecution maintained that most annexes referenced by the investigation affidavit were already in the Senate record as separately premarked documents.

The prosecution argued that the NBI had complied with the requirements identified after its first submission and that the February 10 affidavit addressed those requirements; it objected to extended questioning about the earlier submission as irrelevant.

The prosecution argued that whatever the DOJ or regular courts might later do with the NBI complaints would not decide the separate impeachment question whether the alleged conduct amounted to betrayal of public trust.

The defense denied the remaining allegations, described them as false or misleading, said the Vice President had been answering a speculative inquiry, and maintained that the prosecution retained the burden of proof.

The defense disputed attributing the word 'assassin' to the Vice President and objected that prosecution questioning presented that characterization as her own language.

The defense emphasized that the Justice Department initially described the January 30 NBI referral as insufficient for preliminary investigation and requiring case build-up, then questioned how added materials and a later affidavit changed the first submission.

The defense challenged the referral's documentary chronology through questions about receiving dates, docket markings, and added affidavits. Counsel sought to determine whether documents had been altered, if at all; the session produced no court finding of alteration or tampering.

The defense emphasized that the NBI recommendation did not bind the Justice Department or the courts. Lotoc agreed that it was a recommendation and said the DOJ would assess it. He understood the referral to remain in preliminary investigation and said the NBI had received no further DOJ update; no DOJ charging resolution or criminal-court adjudication was introduced in the sitting.

The defense suggested through questioning that the NBI-DOJ relationship and the President's status as an alleged offended party created bias against the Vice President. Lotoc denied presidential intervention and said the investigation was evidence-based; the exchange produced no finding of bias.

The defense used the interview records to show that agents focused their questions on one statement and suggested that selected excerpts could remove context. Lotoc said that, based on the records, only that statement was asked about; he also maintained that the NBI authenticated the whole recording and that the media interviewees had participated in the full press conference.

The defense used an unsigned interview record and the same apparent typographical error in three agent affidavits to challenge the independence and reliability of supporting materials. The exchange acknowledged possible use of a template but did not resolve who copied what or the documents' ultimate weight.

Lotoc identified himself as NBI regional director for BARMM and former chief of the Cybercrime Division. He was the sitting's only sworn witness.

Lotoc said the investigation began on November 23, 2024 and described a workflow of identifying and preserving digital evidence, collecting it, generating a hash value, storing it, and proceeding to analysis and legal evaluation.

Lotoc said the NBI assessed the recorded statements through their delivery, addressees, relationships, and recipients' reactions and considered intent, capability, and motive. These were the bureau's investigative judgments, not findings adopted by the court.

The prosecution had Lotoc identify previously marked video recordings containing October 18 excerpts and the November 23 press conference, as well as two NBI subpoenas, related letters, and the February 10 affidavit of investigation.

Lotoc said the Cybercrime Division did not investigate whether anyone had actually been instructed or engaged to carry out a killing and that the NBI director or intelligence service was better positioned to address that subject.

Lotoc said the NBI also began an inquiry into an alleged threat against the Vice President, but the chair observed that the displayed subpoena and letter did not expressly request evidence about such a threat. Lotoc clarified that the subpoenas concerned grave threats and inciting to sedition and said he knew of no Cybercrime Division report on the separate alleged threat.

Lotoc understood the NBI referral to remain in preliminary investigation and said the bureau had received no further Justice Department update. He described the NBI's findings as recommendations submitted for DOJ evaluation rather than binding adjudications.

Lotoc described his investigative assessment: "To me, as the chief investigator at that time, the utterance as made by the Vice President was serious."

On the Cybercrime Division's separate inquiry into an alleged threat against the Vice President, Lotoc said: "Unfortunately, the Vice President did not appear. So wala ho kaming makitang pagsisimulan na imbistigahan."

Explaining the NBI-to-DOJ handoff, Lotoc said: "Kung ano yung findings ng NBI, kung anong recommendation, sinasubmit po namin ito sa Department of Justice."

Lotoc's cross-examination was only about halfway complete when the court stopped for the evening. He remained under subpoena to continue under the same oath, and any redirect and recross were still ahead.

The session did not resolve whether inconsistent dates and docket numbers reflected an error or alteration. Those remained defense questions opposed by the prosecution, with no tampering finding by the court.

The interview records reflected questions focused on one recorded statement, but the session did not establish exactly what video each interviewee was shown. Lotoc maintained that the NBI authenticated and reviewed the complete recording and that the interviewees had participated in the full press conference.

The implications of the unsigned interview record and common affidavit typo remained contested; the exchange did not decide whether those features invalidated the NBI's work.

The defense said evidence about the alleged Operation Romanov threat would form part of its case but had not identified the witnesses or presented that evidence in this sitting.