July 13, 2026

Introduction

This is Working Draft's audio overview of the Impeachment Trial of Vice President Sara Duterte for July 13, 2026. This is a working reference, not an official Senate record or a finding on the merits.

The principal witness

The session centered on Jeremy C. Lotoc, the NBI regional director for BARMM and a former chief of its Cybercrime Division. He was the sitting's only sworn witness and described the division's investigation of recorded statements attributed to Vice President Sara Duterte.

Senator-judge question

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

Senator-judge question

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.

Senator-judge observation

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

Senator-judge motion

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.

How the recordings were handled

Lotoc described collecting and preserving digital evidence, generating a hash value, storing the material, and moving to analysis and legal evaluation. The prosecution then played previously marked recordings from October 18 and November 23 after the court directed joint verification and supervised unsealing. Those exchanges concerned identification and playback, not an admission ruling.

Recommendation, not adjudication

In its offer, the prosecution said the NBI investigation led to complaints alleging three grave-threats counts and one inciting-to-sedition count. The chair later confined Lotoc's answer to whether the NBI believed it had prima facie evidence sufficient to file complaints, expressly not whether an offense had been committed. Lotoc described the NBI result as a recommendation submitted to the Justice Department for evaluation.

A disputed characterization

The defense objected to attributing the word assassin to the Vice President. The prosecution responded that the Philippine National Police and the Presidential Communications Office had used the term. Before cross-examination, Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano made a manifestation distinguishing the recorded phrase that she had spoken to someone from the prosecution's characterization that she had contracted an assassin. The chair noted that this was a manifestation rather than a question, then recognized respondent's counsel for cross-examination.

The document challenge

On cross-examination, the defense questioned the Justice Department's initial case-build-up requirement, receiving dates, docket markings, and later-added affidavits. Counsel asked whether a date discrepancy demonstrated tampering, but the chair sustained the objection. When the questions moved to a Justice Department document outside Lotoc's competence, the chair said a DOJ witness would be needed. The session produced no finding that any document had been altered or tampered with.

The allegation of bias

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.

What the media interviews covered

The interview records reflected questions focused on one recorded statement, and the session did not establish exactly what video each interviewee was shown. Lotoc maintained that the NBI authenticated the complete recording and that the media interviewees had participated in the full press conference. The defense's context challenge therefore remained unresolved.

Unsigned minutes and repeated text

The defense also pointed to interview minutes that lacked the NBI interviewer's signature and to the same apparent typographical error in three agent affidavits. Lotoc acknowledged that the NBI used templates and agreed that one of the affidavits could have followed a template. The exchange did not establish fabrication or determine who copied what.

Where the criminal referral stood

The defense emphasized that the NBI recommendation did not bind the Justice Department or the courts. Lotoc agreed that it was a recommendation for DOJ assessment, 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 this sitting.

How to use this overview

The episode page links each substantive point to the timed transcript and the original Senate video. The narration is synthetic. Verify consequential wording against those sources before relying on it.