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.

Imee Marcos questioned how an NBI subpoena dated November 6 could precede the November 23 instruction to investigate. Lotoc said the November 6 date was a typographical error.

Bam Aquino asked the defense to identify where its answer specifically denied the allegation. Defense counsel cited paragraphs 3 and 197, denied that Duterte had actually spoken to a hitman, and reserved its right to present evidence later.

Alan Peter Cayetano distinguished Duterte's recorded statement that she had spoken to someone from the prosecution's separate allegation that she had contracted an assassin, noting that the words 'assassin' and 'contracted' did not come from the recorded statement itself.

Raffy Tulfo observed that the receiving office, rather than Lotoc, appeared to be the proper witness to explain errors in the investigation data form.

Juan Miguel Zubiri moved to stop for the evening. Defense counsel said cross-examination was only about halfway complete, and the court carried the unfinished examination to the next sitting.

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.