July 8, 2026

Senate President, the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court, and the Senator-Judges.

Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to make a proclamation.

All persons are commanded to keep silent under pain of penalty while the Impeachment Court is in session for the trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hereby called to order. We shall be led in prayer by Senator Pia Cayetano.

Let us bow our heads. Heavenly Father, we come before you today with a deep sense of responsibility. We ask for your wisdom, Lord, the kind of wisdom that seeks only what is true and what is right. As Senator judges, may we listen carefully, reason clearly, and decide justly. May we never lose sight of the fact that our role here is not to serve any interest, but the interest of the Filipino people and the integrity of our institutions. We pray for fairness in every step of this process. May the truth be heard, may the evidence speak for itself, and may justice, whatever form it takes, be arrived at with honesty and with clear conscience. We also pray for our nation. We know that moments like this can divide us. May this process, difficult as it is, bring us closer to the kind of Philippines we all want to live in, one where no one is above the law and where every Filipino can trust that justice is real. In your word, Book of Timothy. 2, verses 1 to 2, Timothy urges the people to pray, petition, and intercede for their leaders. We are a prayerful nation, O Lord. Please hear our prayers. In Jesus' name, amen.

Amen.

The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.

Roll call of members.

Senator-Judge Aquino. Senator-Judge Cayetano, Alan. Senator-Judge Cayetano, Pia. Senator-Judge Dela Rosa. Senator-Judge Ejercito. Senator-Judge Estrada. Senator-Judge Go. Senator-Judge Hontiveros. Senator-Judge Lacson. Senator-Judge Lapid. Senator-Judge Legarda. Senator-Judge Marcoleta. Senator-Judge Marcos. Senator-Judge Padilla. Senator-Judge Pangilinan. Senator-Judge Sotto III. Senator-Judge Tulfo, Erwin. Senator-Judge Tulfo, Raffy. Senator-Judge Villanueva. Senator-Judge Villar, Camille.

Senator-Judge Villar, Mark. Senator-Judge Zubiri. The Presiding Officer, Senator-Judge Escudero. Senate President Gatchalian.

With 20 Senators present, the Chair declares the presence of the quorum.

We recognize the Presiding Officer, Senator Chiz Escudero.

Thank you, Mr. Senate President.

The Presiding Officer dispenses with the reading of the journal, and if there are no—unless there are objections, considers the journal of July 7, 2026 as— Approved. The Clerk of Court will please call the case before the Impeachment Court.

Case No. 004-2026, in the matter of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte.

Appearances of the parties.

Tech, kindly turn on the mic.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Same appearance for the Prosecution.

We are ready, Your Honor.

Appearances for the Respondent.

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Same appearance for the Vice President.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to kindly bring the witness who was testifying yesterday, I believe Mr. Calilung.

Your Honor, the prosecution is ready for the continuation of the presentation of our first witness, NBI agent Calilung.

And with that, Your Honor, we would like to request that Atty. Virgil Ligutan, Atty. Amado Ligutan, be recognized, Your Honor.

For the record, Atty. Ligutan will be representing the counsel for prosecutors and on the part of the respondent, it will be Atty. Narvasa.

That will be correct?

By the way, while we're waiting for the witness, Atty. Narvasa, if you recall yesterday, Atty. Ligutan, in response to a question by a senator-judge, gave a discussion, a peroration, if you will. But yesterday I said we will be giving counsel the same opportunity. I cleared it earlier with Senator Pia Cayetano, who wanted the statements deleted from the record. However, since this is a televised proceeding,

The fairest thing to do is to give you an opportunity as well. Atty. Ligutan spent five minutes and 18 seconds delivering his discussion. The Court will give you the same time after your cross-examination, with a warning—

I would

like to thank the Presiding Officer for

For prudence, for wisdom in trying to resolve this issue. And I do understand that we are 24 people, all elected by the people, all wanting justice, all wanting a fair trial. Having said that, prudence dictates that we stop ourselves from asking certain questions that can prejudice the whole trial, whether or not

Our intention is to do so. So the problem is well stated by the presiding officer that if we simply delete from the record,

eh

mapapanood nyo na rin naman sa YouTube yung magandang discussion ng prosecution. So on one sense, it is fair to give the defense a chance to answer. But on another sense, it's unfair. Why? Because whoever phrases the question, lamang na eh. Because the question is, why is this an impeachable offense? So for example, if I was the one who stood up yesterday and I asked the prosecution, why is this a political vendetta?

And why is the House not investigating the flood control instead of investigating the Vice President? That would be unfair. That would be unfair to the House. That would be unfair to everyone. So simply giving the prosecution the chance to answer that question I asked,

It would be unfair to everyone. So I do not know the solution. I accept the solution of the Presiding Officer. Now, let's not tolerate any more questions like that. I agree with Senator Pia. I don't like being called out. But that's the role of the Presiding Officer and the Senate President. So sana yun lang. One, when we ask the questions, we'll make sure it doesn't prejudice the whole trial. Whatever we say here, may ma-accuse na lawyering for the prosecution or defense, okay lang yun. Okay lang yun. Sa prayer nga kahapon, basta justice, bahala na magalit. Okay. But my last point, Mr. President, let's give the defense a little latitude in not only answering that question, but what you want to say. Because nga, the question is unfair. So if you're simply going to answer that question, then it won't solve the problem na nakapagsalita sila five minutes, kayo nakapagsalita. So we'll consider, personally, I'll consider the very eloquent answer yesterday as a sort of a closing. So same, same, personally, Mr. Presiding Officer, give the latitude to the defense na parang closing din na whatever. Because they have affirmative defenses. And they did not push us to hear that. They went straight to trial. So dun din sa mga nagsasabi na delay sa dami ng objection, that's unfair. Let's give everyone latitude here. The same thing, I think may konti sa internet na photocopies are not original and the counsel was simply citing a Supreme Court decision.

And the rules of court. And the rules of court.

So I'm just saying it's an emotional issue, so all of us will be [unclear], whatever, I think, witness. [unclear], but having said that, Mr. President, let's give each other leeway, but only to the point that the trial will not disintegrate into a political fiasco or circus. Thank you, Mr. President.

The remarks of Senator-Judge Alan Cayetano are noted. Senator-Judge Pia Cayetano.

Thank you, Mr. President. This will be brief. First of all, I'd just like to confirm that I acknowledge what the presiding officer said, that I agreed. Basically, I'm withdrawing my motion in the interest of fairness because the delivery of justice is about fairness. So, if the prosecution can

speak with their closing statement. I am amenable to that. But very, very, very briefly, Mr. President, I'd like to put on record, why are we being strict about the rules? Why do I have to bother standing up? Well, because nothing in this world will run well without the rules.

The Senate is a basketball-loving Senate. Dami dito hilig mag-basketball. Kung ako volleyball player, colleagues ko basketball. I'll use basketball as an example. Will you have a decent basketball game if there's no rules? No, there's rules. That's why we stand up. And then sometimes there are also opportunities to question the rules. That's also fine. But that's why we have to stand up and call the attention of the presiding officer when we feel that the rules are being violated. And we will continue to do so. When we believe it is necessary in the interest of justice. Thank you, Mr. President. The

The remarks of the lady are noted. Since we are discussing housekeeping chores and matters, let the Presiding Officer continue with the same. The Presiding Officer will call for a break midway through in order to afford the parties 15 minutes to relax, go over their notes, and do their thing. In regard to senator-judges or counsel for the parties who are not on deck, you're free to answer the call of nature in the least disruptive manner possible and return afterwards outside of the 15 minutes that we will be doing halfway through the proceedings. And finally, a request has been brought to the Presiding Officer to request as well the senator-judges to lower the tone of conversational voices because I think where you're seated is an echo chamber. Naririnig sa iba't ibang sulok ng plenaryong ito yung mga sinasabi din ninyo at hindi din nakakapag-concentrate yung ilan sa ating mga kasama na nakaupo sa paligiran ninyo. Just a reminder, and one last reminder before I recognize counsel for the respondent: Mr. Calilung, you will be testifying once again and will be undergoing cross-examination under the same oath that you took yesterday. Do you understand that?

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you. Counsel for Respondent, Atty. Narvasa, if you are ready, you may proceed with your cross-examination.

Your Honor, may I be allowed to approach a witness?

You may do so, counsel.

Good

afternoon, Mr. Calilung. Dr. Nelson. During your direct examination, you testified that you were trained on photo and video authentication.

Yes, sir.

You said that you were trained for two weeks?

Specifically for photo and video, sir.

Sir, my questions are answerable by yes or a no. Could you please constrain yourself to...

Atty. Marcello

C.

Before counsel for respondent proceeds, counsel for the prosecutor, let the Presiding Officer recognize you first. You are so recognized, sir. What is your objection?

Bacquel Unfortunately, Your Honor, please, that's not sanctioned in the rules. There's nothing in our rules that would allow a defense to constrain a witness even on cross-examination to answer the questions by a yes or no answer. It's not in the rules. So, Your Honor, please, we cannot constrain a witness to answering either a yes or a no. The witness should be able to qualify. The usual answer by the defense is that it could be handled by the prosecution on

Redirect, but that is not the case. [unclear] the defense to constrain the witness to answer yes or no, the prosecution will vehemently object to that, Your Honor, please.

The Presiding Officer overrules the objection. The counsel for the prosecutors can make a [unclear].

'Arnaud, Atty.

According to his testimony yesterday, he has attended over, if I recall correctly, 30 hearings already. So he would know how to respond and to explain if the need would arise. And it's up for counsel for the respondent, if at all, to strike out whatever answers that are not responsive to his question. Counsel for the respondent may proceed. Thank you.

We would abide, Your Honor. We would abide.

Thank you, counsel, for the prosecutors.

And you testified that you got this training from Max Corps Interventures, correct?

Yes, sir.

And you said that the training you got from MaxCore InterVentures was in digital forensics.

Yes, sir.

I have with me an article of partnership of MaxCore InterVentures Co. You see that it states that it is the articles of partnership of MaxCore InterVentures Co.

Your Honor, may we allow Atty. Stephen Magallon to also approach the

Witnesses stand to peruse the document. And of course, at this juncture, Your Honor, please. I have to object. I have no question yet, Your Honor. I am objecting to the witness being shown an articles of incorporation, a partnership of a... Partnership, Your Honor, please. Anyway, since the question has not been asked, I will— Let us wait

for the question, counsel. In the meantime, the Presiding Officer allows counsel for the prosecutors to examine

the document being presented

to

the witness. And, Your Honor, for the reference of the senators, we are flashing these articles of partnership on the screens. Sir, please take a look at page two of these articles.

Page two, sir. That's here.

Page one,

page two.

Let's read it together, okay?

Primary purpose, to engage in the business of trading both import and export of goods on wholesale retail basis. Do you see that, sir?

Yes, sir.

Now on page, the same very, very same page two. The secondary purpose. Let's read it together again. Own, use, improve, develop, subdivide, sell, exchange, lease, All kinds including buildings, houses, apartments, and other structures. Do you see that, sir?

Yes, sir.

After that, in the same page two, the second secondary purpose is to print, publish, distribute, buy, sell, acquire, acquire rights to and generally deal in all kinds of software packages, books, periodicals, newspapers, magazines, journals. and other publications dealing in or having to do with subjects of all kinds character and all acts of things as may time to time be deemed needful necessary or required you see that sir

yes sir

thank

you sir now i'm showing you a screenshot of the website of this max score interventions co it states under about us I am also flashing this on the screen, your honors, for the ease of the center judges.

Your honor, at this juncture, the prosecution will now manifest that there was no question propounded as to the presentation of the articles of partnership. And the council is now moving forward to the presentation of an alleged website. Therefore, it seems that the defense council is the one Presenting the documents without propounding any question to this witness. Highly improper, Your Honor, please. Highly improper. The counsel should be asking question and not presenting document. You will have your turn when the defense team is allowed to present your evidence. Two documents, no question yet. Highly improper, Your Honor, please. Again, I don't want to put the lawyer on the spot. But that is highly improper. Ask questions. Your Honor, I did ask questions. No, there was no question. Can we

ask

that the transcript be read back? Counsel, kindly proceed. Thank you. Counsel, for the prosecutors, with understanding that Mr. Calilung is not testifying as to the truth of whatever counsel asked him or what he read, because clearly he's not competent to testify as to the truth of what is contained in the articles of partnership. However, as to the fact that he read it and saw it, Up to that extent. And the senator judges are so advised as well. So ordered. You may proceed, sir. Thank you, sir. And I am on cross, Your Honor. Thank you.

Sir, under the words about us, it says, MaxCorp InterVentures has been established as a one-stop source of different products and services intended for both government and private institutions. Its company tagline Innovation without boundaries stands true testament to provide customers with quality merchandise from the simplest to the most sophisticated ones at very affordable prices. The company places a long-term business relationship through customer satisfaction on top of its priority list with integrity and honesty as the foundation of the company. It envisions to evolve into excellence amidst the competitive pace of information technology. You see that, sir?

Yes, sir.

Sir, now I'm showing you another screenshot of the website of this MaxCore Interventors Co. You confirmed that I'm also flashing this for the ease of the court.

Sir? At this point, Your Honor, please allow. The prosecution is allowed.

Counsel for the prosecutor is recognized. Your Honor, not

by way of an objection, but... A manifestation, Your Honor, please. Your

Honor,

this

is— Wait,

wait, wait.

Before that, I would like to object to your manifestation. Your Honor, there's no objection. Why is the prosecutor allowed to manifest during my cross-examination?

Counselor,

correspondent, kindly wait for the Presiding Officer to recognize you. Thank you, Your Honor. What is the desire of the counsel of the prosecutors

to make

I would like

to put into record the simple fact, Your Honor, please, that basis has not yet been laid as to the presentation of this. He presented an article of partnership and screenshots of websites without saying who took these screenshots or from where did the defense get the articles of partnership. That is only by way of manifestation. No need for the court to rule on that, Your Honor, please.

Noted. Earlier ruling of the Presiding Officer stands. Counsel may proceed.

Your

Honor, may I respond?

No need, Counsel. It was not an objection. Please proceed with your cross. Thank you, Your Honor.

May I also state a manifestation, Your Honor?

Your Honor, the basis of the defense was laid—

For the record, the Chair will allow it. Just this once, please.

Thank you.

The basis of the defense was laid when we asked him whether he testified that he

got his training as an expert witness from Maxcor Inverventures.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Your Honor. Sir, could you take a look at this? Under the words, our products, the products seen there are office supplies and equipment, ICT equipment software and hardware, investigative equipment hardware and software, emergency response software, and CCTVs. Do you see that?

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Calilung, are you a lawyer?

No, sir.

Yesterday, you testified that you signed The affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025.

Yes, sir.

Your Honor, may I request a copy from the prosecution? I think it is Exhibit P-4-3 in series.

P -4-3

series. Your Honor, please. Manifestation. The witness, number one, mentioned the affidavit of investigation, but that... That the witness did not identify the documents. So for the record, Your Honor, please, that document is not yet presented in courts as a documentary evidence, Your Honor, please. So highly improper for the defense. To elicit that document through this witness precisely because this witness did not yet identify the affidavit of investigation, Your Honor, please.

Which exhibit is this? I believe he did, Counsel,

but which exhibit is this? Exhibit P-4-3 to Exhibit P-4-3BB, Your Honor.

Your Honor, please, if I may, it was not yet identified, but it's pre-marked, Your Honor, please, to be presented by our next witness, Atty. Jeremy C. Lotoc. So highly improper, as much as we want to accommodate.

by any of the witnesses for the counsel for the prosecutors. You will get your chance, counsel for the respondent, when Atty. Lotoc testifies later, which I believe is the only exhibit that he will be testifying—

to.

All right, Your Honor.

Kindly proceed, counsel.

You mentioned an affidavit of investigation, correct?

Yes, sir.

And this affidavit of investigation, you...

Sent a copy to the House of Representatives Committee on Justice.

Yes, sir.

You identified it during the House Committee hearings on April 29, 2025.

Yes, sir.

I'm showing you now an affidavit of investigation.

This is marked as Exhibit D-4-46 in series, Your Honor.

D-4-46 and series. Is there a counterpart marking from the Council for Prosecutors?

Yes, Your Honor. This is P-1, P-4-3 to P-4-3BB.

Thank you. For the record. This affidavit of investigation has appendages, correct? Annexes.

Yes, sir.

And it forms a whole,

correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Do you confirm that you signed this?

I am one of the signatories, sir.

Do you want me to have it in my identified signature?

Your Honor, do you have— Here, sir.

Just by chance, sir, the one you signed— I withdraw,

Your Honor. Apart from this affidavit of investigation, dated February 10, are you aware if there is— Another affidavit of investigation executed by the NBI represented by the Cybercrime Division in relation to this case.

This is the only one that is submitted, sir.

No. Executed.

Signed. My question

is executed.

The defense cannot argue with the witness, Your Honor, please.

The witness would know how to respond, counsel. If he is not responsive to your question, do not argue with the witness. Yes, Your Honor. Can I have your phrase?

Apart from this affidavit of investigation, Are you aware if there is any other affidavit of investigation signed by the NBI represented by the cyber crime? Okay,

at that juncture, I have to object. Vague, Your Honor. Affidavit of investigation signed by the NBI. Related to this case, Your Honor. There could be thousands of documents.

Related

to this

case. If the witness knows, witness may answer. Is there any other affidavit of investigation executed by the NBI cyber crime in relation to this case, witness?

As far as I remember, sir, this is the final affidavit of investigation, sir.

Final affidavit.

Are you

sure, agent? Let me remind you that you are under oath.

Yes, sir.

I have with me a certification, a DOJ certification, executed by J. V. Lawrence B. Bandung,

Senior Assistant State Prosecutor J. V. Bandung. For the record, Your Honor, this is Exhibit D-4-29 for the defense. Do you see this, sir?

Yes, sir.

This certification dated February 5, 2025, states, and I quote, the referral, the complaint referral, does not contain all the necessary evidence to prove the essential elements of the crime. Therefore, it is recommended that the same be first referred for case buildup. Do you see that?

Yes,

sir.

Now, below that, in

the second page, below that, Under the word notes, number one, therefore, states, and I quote, that there is no... May I have this flashed on the screen, please? For the ease of the court, so the honorable court can follow.

Under notes again, sir. For the record, Your Honor, we are flashing the certification on the screen.

Under notes, sir, number

one, therefore, states, and I quote, there is no affidavit of the persons who recorded the video. V.P. November 23, Presscon, Atbatasan Through open broadcast software , an intern stored it in a digital video disc. Do you see that, sir?

Yes, sir.

Let's go to page 2.

On paragraph 7, it states, and I quote, One of the elements of the crime of grave threats is that the offender threatens another with infliction upon the latter's person, honor, or property. Or upon that of the latter's family, of any wrong amounting to any crime. In the instant complaint, only the NBI executed an affidavit and there was no participation on the part of the offended parties, as it appears. NBI is not the offended party for the crime of great theft. Do you see that?

Yes, sir.

Above this, in paragraph 6, it

states that, and I quote, Only the minutes of the meeting with several personalities and representatives from various media outfits were submitted. And although the minutes were signed, there was no individual affidavit executed regarding the contents of said minutes. Do you see that, sir?

Yes, sir.

On paragraph 5, it states that, and I quote, the affidavit of one Patria Morales mentioned that she stored these footages. Atty.

who made such TSN. There was also no affidavit of the person who made the TSN. Do you see that?

Yes, sir.

On paragraph 3, it states that, I quote, annexes I and K—

DVDs with markings NBI-CNN-C-2412436-2 and NBI-CCN-C-2412436-2 were not accompanied by an affidavit of the record and TSN, also affidavit of the one who will execute the TSN.

Yes, sir.

On paragraph 2, it states, and I quote, the press briefing conducted on October 18 was not recorded and or stored in a DVD, no video submitted, and there was no TSN of the said briefing and the necessary affidavit of the person taking the CSN.

Yes, sir.

Now, you are aware.

So, now, is your memory refreshed, sir? The DOJ sent back the original affidavit of investigation to the NBI.

Yes, sir. Thank

you.

Now, you are aware that on February 11, 2025, the NBI, through its then-director, retired Judge Jaime B. Santiago, wrote to the Office of the Prosecutor General submitting a revised affidavit

of investigation.

Yes, sir.

This is your affidavit of investigation dated February

10, 2025.

Wait, wait, wait. Objection, Your Honor. The defense said that this is your affidavit dated February 10 without showing any document. I'm asking, sir, how could the witness answer to a question that is not accompanied with a document? That should be the basis for the question. And

this is your affidavit. I will reform your honor. Kindly reform, counsel. Thank you, your honor. This is your affidavit dated February 10, 2024, correct? Please check.

Sorry, sir.

Can I make a manifestation, Your Honor, please? Your Honor, can we object again

to this manifestation?

I will not even object. I'm being generous. Your Honor. Counsel,

let's wait for the witness to review it. It's a voluminous document. The signature is on the last page. You can make the corresponding objection to the style, manner, or cross-examination of the counsel for responding at the proper time.

This is a photocopy of the

affidavit, sir. Yes, sir. This is the amended one.

Yes, sir. The photocopy, sir. Thank you. With

the permission of council, Mr. Calilung, what was the date of the first affidavit you submitted that was returned by the DOJ to the NBI?

As far as I remember, January 30, when the certification was issued. We complied with the requirements and submitted it on February 10. Have you identified

that affidavit of investigation dated January 30 in yesterday's proceedings? No. Yes or no? Sir? Have you identified the January 30?

The one that I identified, Your Honor, is the authentication, Your Honor.

Not the affidavit of investigation. So you have not done so? Yes, sir. This one, you have not done so too? Yes, Your Honor. For the record, counsel, you may proceed.

I'm showing you now a letter dated January 30 from the former NBI director Jaime Santiago.

Now, I have

to object,

Your Honor, please.

You know, the defense has been confronting this witness with documents even without marking and identifying the source of these documents. It's like plucking out of thin air a document, presenting them the document to the witness, and withdrawing the document. Your Honor, that's up to the—

So my question is, through the presiding officer, is the defense not entering these documents into

evidence, Your Honor, please? They can do so at the proper time, counsel, but insofar as the witness is concerned, I think the basis was laid when he said that he executed only one affidavit of investigation in connection with this case. Now it seems that there are two affidavits, both of which have not yet been presented. One will be presented, I think, by Atty. Lotoc. The first one, we're not aware of it.

Is that

correct,

counsel, for the respondent? Your Honor, he just identified a copy of the affidavit of investigation. Dated June, January 30? April 10, 2025. February 10, Your Honor. February 10,

Your Honor, please. What about the first affidavit? The witness said they had the first affidavit.

Yes, Your Honor. Not yet.

Not yet?

Yes.

You

only cited a January 30 letter of

the former

NBI

director. I cited, Your Honor, a certification by the DOJ returning an affidavit.

And that is now the problem, Your Honor. In fact, even I am confused because the documents are not introduced into evidence by the defense.

Counsel, please proceed and kindly help the court to be clarified regarding this matter.

You mentioned that you were aware

that the then director retired, Judge B. Santiago, wrote to the Office of the Prosecutor General submitting a revised affidavit of investigation on February 11, 2025. I'm showing you now that letter

dated February 11, 2025. For

the record, this is Exhibit D-4-43.

For the

defense.

Up for the defense? You mean pre-marked, I suppose? Because when you say marked as evidence for the defense, it's not yet. Your turn has, I mean, you have yet to present your exhibit, so it should be pre-marked, Your Honor, please.

No, it's pre-marked, and I believe both the defense and the, rather, the respondent of the prosecution also have common pieces of evidence which you decided during pretrial. This is not one of them. Which you decided during pretrial to be marked separately. It's not

one of those few common piece of evidence. Yes, there are

a few.

Sir? Please proceed, counsel, for the respondent. Witness the answer.

There is a signature above the name Judge Jaime B. Santiago. Whose signature is that?

Your Honor, now, I would like to object to the relevance. A letter is being, the witness is being confronted with a letter coming from

the former NBI Director Judge Jaime B. Santiago. And this witness

is now being asked to identify whose signature is that. That's obvious.

I'll allow it conditionally if you can show the relevance as far as your ability to test the credibility and the accuracy of the witnesses concerned. In the meantime, I'll allow it. Kindly show the connection, counsel. Thank you.

Sir, whose signature is this?

As far as I remember, signature of Director Santiago, sir. Thank you.

On the last line of the letter, on the fourth page, sir,

Please take a look.

Last line. It says, and I quote, To support our recommendations attached herein is the revised affidavit of investigation, including its attachments. Did you see that, agent?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And you confirmed that the former NBI director Jaime Santiago wrote to the Prosecutor General Richard Anthony D. Fadulion a letter dated February, January 30, 2025. This is one of the documents that you submitted to the Committee on Justice, correct?

Where is it? Okay, I will show you now.

May I have this flashed on the screen?

Do you recall this document?

Yes, sir. Yes.

January 30, 2025 is a date earlier than February 10, 2025, correct?

Yes, sir.

Your Honor.

Your Honor, the witness being asked which came first.

Relevance, Your Honor. Relevance.

Counsel, Counsel, if the witness knows and the counsel for respondent will be given the latitude to test the credibility, accuracy, and completeness of the testimony of the witness. But we note your continuing objection because you already sound frustrated, Counsel, in regard to this line of questioning by the counsel

for respondent.

I'm very patient, Your Honor. I'm very patient.

The council correspondent may

proceed. Witness

may answer.

He already answered, Your Honor. Thank you. You earlier confirmed that there was actually a certification dated February 5, 2025.

Objection, obviously, I don't remember

this witness. Let

the council finish with this question, counsel.

He

even read it, Your Honor. You likewise confirmed that in that said certification, Dated February 5, 2025. The earlier affidavit of investigation were subject to seven recommendations. And you confirmed that you read that.

Objection. Misleading order, please.

Now the council mentioned seven grounds. Seven grounds. And I don't remember This witness uttering the term seven crowns. What I do remember, Your Honor, please, is that this witness was confronted with a certification, a letter, whatever, but now the council is now asking this witness to confirm the contents of those certifications or letters. Misleading. That's not allowed during cross. The council is now assuming facts that have yet to be established. Can I repeat that? This witness was only confronted with certifications, letters, dated this, dated that. And now, the counsel now asking, do you confirm rights? Now he is asking this witness to confirm that in that letter there are seven grounds. As if this witness uttered those words. The ground is misleading, definition. This counsel is assuming facts that have yet to be established through this witness. Your Honor, please. Counsel,

again, the witness is not a newbie. I think he can handle himself and would know how to answer if indeed he is familiar or not with what is being presented to him. And thus far, he has responded based on his knowledge of these documents. Chair will allow it. Witness may answer.

Sir?

Can you repeat the question, Counsel? You confirmed that there was a certification dated February 5, 2025. You likewise confirmed that in said certification— Your

Honor, Your Honor, compound question. Compound question. There's no question. Wait, wait.

Kindly wait for the Presiding Officer to recognize you before answering. Yes, Your Honor. Yes.

Please, counsel for

the prosecutors, please finish your objection.

Thank you so much. Can I? Yes, please proceed, counsel. Compound questions. The witness is now being confronted with two. Successive questions without allowing this witness to answer the first question. What makes a compound question... No need to lecture, Counsel. Counsel for Respondent, please reform.

Your Honor, I had no question. He already... I had no question yet.

Kindly, kindly proceed with

your question. Thank you, Your Honor.

The earlier affidavit of investigation was subject... To seven recommendations from the DOJ for case build-up.

Objection vague. The earlier investigation, which investigation is the Council referring to?

Objection vague.

We already established, Your Honor, there was an earlier one.

Overruled. Overruled.

Again, the witness is competent enough to testify. Overruled. Witness, kindly proceed with your question, Council.

Yes.

In

the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, that you identified, Despite DOJ's Recommendation No. 6 that you earlier read, Sir, Your Honor, I am not yet finished. Can

we wait for the counsel to finish with this question, counsel, please?

Sir,

there were still no affidavits of the journalists from the media outlets in your affidavit of investigation dated February 10.

Witness, not under first objection or misleading. Why is it misleading, counsel? The counsel said the earlier affidavit of investigation. In fact, your honor, please, he referred to the February 10 investigation. That's not the earlier investigation. That is the final affidavit of investigation submitted to the DOJ.

Misleading. Misleading, your honor. Your honor, the presiding officer will ask the question. Mr. Witness, did you attach the affidavits of the two? Witnesses that viewed the video of the vice president in the February 10 affidavit?

Yes, sir. Let me qualify my answer in number six, sir.

You may do so.

In number six, sir, the DOJ requested an affidavit to be executed regarding the content of the minutes. I executed an affidavit attesting to those minutes, sir, which I'm part of the interview, sir.

But was it attached to the February 10 affidavit? Yes, sir.

Counsel for the respondent, your witness.

Thank you.

Sir, but there are no affidavits of the journalists from the media outlets, correct?

My question is not found there, Your Honor. Oh, Your Honor, please, sir. My question is not found there. Okay, wait, wait, wait. The

counsel is confronting the witness with a document and he propounded questions and then he

asked another question and he took the document away. What's the purpose of that?

objection, Your Honor? My question is plain, Your Honor. Let the witness peruse the document you presented him with. Let

him answer that through a document. My question is plain, Your Honor.

Your Honor, a witness should be allowed to peruse the document

that he was confronted with.

I am not—Counsels, please. Please.

Witness—I think the witness understood the question. Mr. Calilung, you may answer if you understand the question. I will repeat

the question, Your Honor. Kindly repeat, Counsel. Thank you, Your Honor. There is still no affidavits of the journalists from media outlets appended on your revised affidavit of investigation, sir.

May I

qualify for an answer? No, sir. Just

answer a yes or no.

Kindly look at the document presented to you. ONRI direct counsel can make you explain the disparity, if any.

The question is simple. Are the affidavits attached to the affidavit of investigation?

May I see the question number six?

Your Honor, my question does not relate to question number six.

Kindly show the witness counsel.

I will enable him to give an

intelligent answer to your question. Can we please slash certification and put it to paragraph number six?

The paragraph number six states that only the minutes of meeting with several personalities and representatives from various media outfits were submitted, although the minutes were signed. There were no individual affidavits executed regarding to the content of the minutes. Okay, sir.

I

have no question.

So the answer is

the affidavits are not

attached. I have executed an affidavit, sir. No, the

affidavits of the two journalists are not attached. I think that's the only question of counsel for the respondent.

Thank you,

Your Honor.

Instead, sir, as you confirmed, what you appended to the affidavit of investigation are affidavits of NBI agents, correct?

Yes, sir.

Not the journalists who were present during

the

November 23-24 press conference.

The one who interviewed, sir.

Yeah, the one who interviewed. Not the journalists. Ashkahn

answered, Your Honor.

Sir, in the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025 that you identified, despite DOJ's recommendation number 7, can

we show again DOJ recommendation number 7?

In the certification dated February 5, 2025, it is still the NBI Cybercrime Division that is the complainant.

I believe this is answered on the letter of the director, sir.

Sir, my answer is answerable, but yes and no.

The first lady Lisa Marcos?

Yes, sir. The

former Speaker of the House Martin Romualdes?

Yes, sir.

Did President Marcos appear before the NBI during its investigation?

No, sir.

Did the former Speaker Martin Romaldes appear before the NBI during its investigation?

No, sir.

Sir, I'm showing you again for the record the affidavit investigation. Sir, did you attach to that affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025 an affidavit of the President Marcos?

Only the responses, sir.

Sir, listen to my question.

Yes, sir.

Your Honor, he did not answer, so I am entitled to ask. Not responsive.

The question was, Mr. Witness, did you attach the affidavit of President Marcos to the February 10 affidavit?

No, sir.

Did you attach an affidavit of the First Lady Lisa Marcos on your affidavit?

No, sir.

Did you attach an affidavit of former Speaker Martin Romaldes on your affidavit of investigation?

No, sir.

To your knowledge, if you know, sir.

Did President Marcos file any criminal complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte as a result of the November 23, 2024 online press conference? You made that statement.

No, sir.

My question is, if you know, did the President file any criminal complaint against the Vice President?

I have no personal knowledge.

Did the First Lady Lisa Areneta Marcos file any criminal complaint against VP Sara?

I have no personal knowledge.

How about the Speaker Martin Romaldes? Did he file any criminal complaint against VP Sarri as a result of the November 23, 2024 online press conference?

I have no personal knowledge.

Did you really investigate this case? With Ron, Your Honor. With Ron. With Ron.

Did you really investigate this? How about Speaker Martin Romualdez? In other words, sir, the alleged offended parties were not included as complainants in the case you filed with the Department of Justice.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Please. Thank you. And despite the fact that the NBI Cybercrime Division did not comply with recommendations number 6 and number 7 in the certification dated February 5, 2026, it nevertheless filed the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025 that you identified today.

Can I qualify my answer, sir?

No, sir. Just answer with a yes or no.

Witness may be allowed to answer according to how he wishes to explain. You may proceed, Mr. Witness, to answer.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. For this case, we complied with the requirements of the DOJ. That's why we secured a second certification wherein our document is enough for preliminary investigation, sir. Okay.

Thank you.

And this

certification is a

certification dated February 5, 2025, correct?

This is not the new certification, sir.

Oh, sorry, sir.

Apologies, sir. February 11.

This

was also executed by Senior Assistant State Prosecutor J. V. Lawrence B. Bandong, correct?

Yes, sir.

Now let's discuss the nature of the investigation you conducted.

You claimed in your affidavit, sir, that affidavit of investigation that the NBI began its investigation into the VP's remarks because it was directed by the DOJ to do so.

Motu proprio indirected, sir.

Okay.

Do you understand what you just said, sir?

Yes, sir.

Can I object to that,

Your Honor, please? I'm asking, sir. It

makes sense. Argumentative,

counsel. Move on.

Motu proprio, sir, means... Oh, no. Objection. You cannot lecture, counsel. This is cross

-examination. Sir, you mentioned mutu proprio. What does it mean?

Even without a complainant, we started the investigation, sir.

Are you sure, sir?

Oh, argumentative.

Are you sure, sir? Move on, counsel. Move on.

How about direct investigation? What does that mean?

Your Honor.

Okay, never mind.

Directed

investigation. What does that mean?

There is a subtraction from all of, sir.

From? What does above mean?

It may be the DOJ or the higher.

Higher. What's higher than the DOJ?

Based on that, it's only the DOJ,

sir.

You said above the DOJ, sir.

No, sir. Above the DOJ.

Sir, you said above. May I ask for a reading?

Counsel, again, I would have to sustain the objection. It is argumentative. I heard the answer and he meant as a general term, above. But referring apparently to only the DOJ in this particular instance.

We submit, Your Honor.

Please proceed.

You confirmed that the NBI Cybercrime Division is the complainant in the case against the Vice President and that the DOJ filed this with the DOJ.

Objection. Compound, Your Honor. That's a compound question. No question, Your Honor.

That was just a statement.

Oh, exactly. Your Honor, a statement? He's laying

the basis for a question. Go to your question, Counsel. Sir, the NBI, of course, you're from the NBI. Is under the Department of Justice.

Yes, sir.

Your Honor, we can take judicial notice of that. Your Honor.

I'm

on cross, Your Honor.

I know,

but there are things that need not be discussed. Your

Honor, please. Counsel, let's give him some latitude. Although we can take judicial notice of that, it's part of

his cross-examination.

Yes, thank you, Your Honor. The Secretary of Justice is meanwhile the head of the DOJ, correct?

Yes, sir.

The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over the NBI.

No more questions.

Yes

or no, Mr. Witness,

if you know.

Can you repeat,

sir? The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over the NBI.

Yes

or no?

We are under, sir. But we're independent.

So you do not know? Oh, Your Honor, that's argumentative. So you do not know? All right, Your Honor. Are you aware of Book 4, Chapter 8, Supervision and Control of the Admin Code? Your Honor, I have no question yet. Please. Section 39

thereof,

Secretary's authority. The Secretary shall have the supervision and control over the bureaus, offices, and agencies under him. Supervision and control. Sir, my question is this. Is the NBI, the National Bureau of Investigation, a bureau under the Department of Justice?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And, sir, the President has control over all executive departments, correct? I believe so, sir. The DOJ is one of those executive departments, correct?

Yes, sir.

And the current president is Ferdinand Marcos Jr., correct? We agree to that. That's judicial notice. Your Honor, please.

Yes

or no? There's no other president. He answered already, Your Honor. Already asked and answered. The head of the executive branch is President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., correct?

Yes, sir.

The very same Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who you said was an offended party in the case against Vice President Duterte.

Yes, sir.

So, in other words, The NBI investigated and filed the complaint. The DOJ directed the investigation and will determine whether the case should proceed to court and the alleged offended party. President Marcos is the constitutional head of the executive branch exercising control over both the DOJ and the NBI.

Sir,

you testified earlier that you investigated the Vice President in relation to the press briefing that she conducted on November 23, 2024. Yes,

sir.

This investigation by the NBI Cybercrime Division was started after the conduct of the November 23, 2024 press briefing of the Vice President, correct?

Yes, sir.

So basically, to put it simply, the investigation was done after the supposed incident on November 23, 2024.

The same day, sir.

The same day, but after. Oy,

Your

Honor, the same day, then after. Same, not responsive, Your Honor. Counsel, clarify your

question. Same day,

same day. The investigation was done after, later then, the supposed incident on November 23, 2024.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

You mean to say later that day?

Yes, Your Honor.

Because how can you investigate something that hasn't happened yet? Correct.

Yes,

Your Honor.

Please proceed.

Sir, you're not one of the participants of the press conference on November 23, 2025, correct?

Yes, Sir.

So you do not have personal knowledge about what transpired during that press briefing, correct?

It was livestreamed, Sir.

You did not watch that livestream, correct? In real time?

Yes, Sir.

You only acquired knowledge about it when you started investigating later that day.

Yes, sir.

You also do not have personal knowledge of the alleged threats made by the Vice President during that press briefing. Press briefing, sorry.

After the press briefing. After.

You only acquired knowledge about it when you started investigating.

Yes, sir.

You also do not have personal knowledge of the alleged assassin that was allegedly hired by the Vice President. Personal knowledge, sir?

No, sir.

Now, during your testimony yesterday, you mentioned that during your investigation on the November 23, 2024 press briefing conducted by the Vice President, you preserved a copy of said press briefing through open source investigation. Correct?

Preserve a copy through open broadcast software studies.

Okay.

Thank you for the correction.

One of the videos that you were Able to preserve in relation to your investigation is the screen recording of the November 23, 2024 press briefing conducted by the Vice President, right?

Yes, sir.

Your Honor, may I move that the very same USB be unsealed and shown by the Prosecutor's Exhibit P-4-10 be unsealed and shown the witness?

Counsel for the Prosecutor so instructed. Thank you, Your Honor.

This

is

Exhibit P-4-10, I believe.

Your Honor, may I request that he unseal the USB and that it be allowed to be played?

Which part, Counsel?

Your Honor, we will play various parts of the—not the whole.

That's what I was worried about.

Yes, Your Honor. We understood by the faces of the honorable members of the court. So

you will play parts

of it. And you identified, I presume, the time stamp. Yes, we have, Your Honor. I will get to that. Witness may open the seal. Thank you, Your Honor.

And counsel for the prosecutors is instructed to accompany counsel, one of the counsels for the respondent, in the tech booth to make sure that it's the same USB being presented.

For the record, Your Honor, the witnesses opening the prosecution's exhibit P-4-10, Your Honor. This is the video dated November 23, 2024.

May I open and seal the flash drive, sir?

Thank you, sir. Counsel this with understanding, okay, very much like yesterday, that this USB will again be sealed and signed by both parties. Yes, Your Honor.

Your Honor, may we request that this be played?

Here, brother. Council for the Prosecutors, kindly accompany a representative from the Council of the Respondent to the tech booth to make sure the same USB to be played. Kindly just guide us through, Council. Atty. Narvasa, as regards to time stamps. Thank you, Your Honor. I will. Please don't forget your promise that it's not going to be the whole two hours. Yes, Your Honor.

Waiting.

Senator Judge P. Aquetano, what is your pleasure, ma

'am? Yes. If it's possible, Mr. President, if our Secretariat can install a I have to monitor here because I'm getting stiff neck watching this. It doesn't look nice that I'm slouched there looking this way. And then this one here is a little bit, not for videos but for the copies of affidavit, it's quite difficult. So if they can put one here, the others want another, but I can speak for those in the front row who would like to request. Thank you.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to kindly install a TV monitor in front of the tables of the Council for the Parties instead of at the witness stand. Both sides.

Underneath the table of the Council for the Parties, Senator Judge Pia.

Council, for the record and for reference, kindly identify the timestamp that you will be playing. I presume in chronological order.

Your Honor, for the record, we are showing the witness a part of the video. Marked as the Prosecution's Exhibit P-4-10. First video, the timestamp around 00-01-27 to 00-02-20 of the November 23, 2023 press briefing as contained in the video that you identified yesterday, sir. Your Honor, may we ask that the video be played at those specific timestamps.

[unclear], and then I just have to do an MR. I did an MR because they did not rule on it. And then suddenly they had an order transferring me. [unclear] to lift that order of contempt because they said that was the procedure if they were not able to rule on that. How were they able to come up with an order, you know, to transfer me to the women's correctional in the dead of the night? I mean, sir, bakit ganun? Wala na bang rights yung mga tao? They just go to your room and then just get—

I don't understand.

May I ask that the video be stopped?

Sir, do you know who that is in the video that you identified?

Atty. Zuleika,

as far as I remember, sir. Atty. Zuleika is who in relation to the vice president? You may answer not a yes or no question.

As far as I remember, she is the COS.

COS meaning Chief of Staff, right? And she is there in that video because she was cited in contempt by the House of Representatives, correct? If you are aware, you're the investigator.

Prior to the...

Sir, my question again. The witness is about

to answer. The

witness was in the process of answering.

Prior to the scene, I have no personal knowledge, but based on her statement during the video,

Ah, so you didn't investigate the things that happened prior to the scene, correct? Yes or no?

We haven't investigated, sir.

Mm-hm. You didn't investigate.

Oh, I did. That's why there's an [unclear], sir.

Bacquel What happened prior to this video, this particular clip of the video, if you know, given that you investigated the incident, as you said?

As far as I remember, there is a hearing in the House of Representatives.

What committee, sir?

I can't

remember the committee, sir. What happened, sir?

COS was cited in contempt, sir.

By who, sir?

I can't remember the exact, sir.

But you investigated. I withdraw, Your Honor. Can we play, let me show you time stamps around 002832 to 002933. This is the same prosecution's exhibit P-4-10. That is the video you identified yesterday. Your Honor, may we request that that video be played?

So after you pushed back attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately?

I am not a criminal. I am already here in their facility. I have assured them already that I will attend their hearing on Monday. So why will they treat me like that? That's why I said I want my lawyer. I want my lawyer.

Sir,

did you consider this in making your evaluation in the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Now let me show you timestamps around 003305 to 003432 of the November 23, 2023 Press Briefing as contained in the video that you identified yesterday, the Prosecutions Exhibit P-4-10. Your Honor, may we request that...

If I did not feel that I was being threatened, my life is being threatened. And I'm sure you saw in the video that my back hurts. I cannot lift heavy things. I cannot. But dahil natakot ako, I feared for my life, I really pushed myself.

It's not just harassment. This is really a threat to my life.

They grabbed on you in the middle of the night?

Huh?

How is that done? Isn't that a threat to my life? They know that I'm sick. I have said that repeatedly when the doctor came here.

Stop. Thank you. Sir, did you investigate the threats to Atty. Zuleika's life?

We need a complaint for this one. That's why...

Yes or no, sir? Did you investigate?

No

question, sir. If the witness may be allowed to

answer, Your Honor. I had no question. Already answered.

Did you consider this part in making your evaluation in the revised affidavit? Ask and

answered. He said

yes earlier.

This is a different part, Your Honor. This is a different part.

Did you consider this part in your evaluation of the revised Affidavit of Investigation dated February 10, 2025?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so despite considering these parts of the aforesaid videos, the NBI still recommended the filing of complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition only against the Vice President. Yes?

May I qualify my answer, sir?

No, sir.

Yes or no.

There's a reason why we—

Sir? Your counsel may ask you questions. This is my turn. So despite considering these parts of the videos shown to you, the NBI still recommended the filing of complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition against only the vice president.

Yes, sir.

Now, in

the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, In page 15, paragraph 40 thereof, it is stated there, and I quote, We unanimously believe that Vice President Duterte may be held liable for grave threats defined and penalized under Article 282 of the revised penal code inciting to sedition defined and penalized under Article 142 of the revised penal code in relation to RA 1017-5. Or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. You see that, sir, right?

Yes, sir.

This conclusion was reached by you together with other affiants of the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, correct?

Yes, sir.

Now, sir, you mentioned that you're not a lawyer, right? Ask and answered. Ask and answered. To date, we are aware... Are you aware if any court has convicted the vice president for grave threats

As far as you know,

not yet, sir.

Not yet. Mr. Witness, as far as you know, no.

No,

sir.

Thank you, Your Honor. To date, are you aware if any court has convicted the Vice President for a sighting to sedition over what transpired on November 23, 2024?

No, on my personal knowledge, sir.

Thank you.

But you're the complainant, right? Argumentative, Your Honor.

I was just asking.

Ask

and answer. Argumentative. Did we withdraw your question? Improper.

Attached to the revised affidavit of investigation, which you identified and submitted to the DOJ and the Committee on Justice, is your affidavit of transcription of the press conference on November 23, 2024. I am showing you this now. For the record, Sir, Your Honor,

I

will show the...

Sir, please take a look. Can

you please state it for the record?

This is your affidavit of transcription.

Transcript. This refers to the press conference on November 23, 2024.

Yes, sir.

You signed this on December 20, 2024?

Yes, sir.

Sir, please take a look at your paragraph 2. Let's read it together. In relation to the ongoing investigation, the undersigned was tasked to transcribe the screen-recorded video of the press conference of Vice President Sara Duterte on 23 November 2024, which was saved on a DVD. You read that, sir?

Yes, sir.

On paragraph 3 thereof, let's read it together. The undersigned transcribed the video mentioned above, which resulted in a CCD transcript hereto attached.

Yes, sir.

You read that, sir? And four: I hereby certify that the above-mentioned digital evidence has been faithfully transcribed and that it has not been edited, altered, or changed in any way. Did you read that, sir? Yes,

sir.

And I am on number five, paragraph five, I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and circumstances and for whatever legal intent and purpose it may serve. Did you read that, sir?

Yes, sir.

These statements of yours, this affidavit of yours, these were all done under oath, correct?

Yes, sir.

And you were offered as an expert in digital forensic examination with a whopping two weeks of training. Do you confirm that that transcription of the screen-recorded video of the press conference of VP Sara Duterte on the 23 November 2024 has been faithfully transcribed?

I don't remember that I was... Introduce us expert but a competent witness.

Okay sir but my question is

The press conference of VP Sarah Duterte that the transcription of the screen-recorded video of the press conference of VP Sarah Duterte on 23 November 2024 was faithfully transcribed by you.

Yes, sir.

Sir, attached to this affidavit is the transcript, correct? Can you please take a look?

Yes, sir.

And Your Honor, may I ask again that the video Parts of the video be played of the press conference on November 23, 2024. Let's go through it together, sir.

First, let's go to around timestamp 00446. Your Honor, may I request that the video be played. Sir, please.

Are you

going to file? Are you going to trigger the filing? I am

not leaving this room. I am here in the House of Representatives detention facility for five days until the hearing on Monday. Nobody can come in here and demand to transfer me in the middle of the night. I have my rights.

Any crime, I am not leaving this room.

Stop, stop. You heard that, sir? You want to repeat it?

I heard it.

You heard it. Sir, in the first, you see also where that part is? Can you see it?

Start with the question with Red Mendoza, sir.

Okay, after. The Solaika Lopez. Did you hear that?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Mr. Witness, kindly speak to the mic.

Yes, Your Honor.

You heard? She said, I am not leaving this room. I am a detainee here. Here in the House of Representatives detention facility for five days until the hearing on Monday. That is the first sentence, sir. My question is this.

Does your affidavit, does your transcript have the words, a detainee?

Can you repeat the video, sir?

Okay, let's do it.

Please repeat. Please play for the video again, please.

I am not leaving

this room. I am a detainee here, here in the House of Representatives Detention Facility for five days.

The part that the detainee is inaudible, the only I heard. You

heard the the,

correct?

Yes.

Are the words or the sounds duh-duh?

Duh-hear-hear.

Hear-hear. Yes.

Hear-hear. Okay.

Please play. How about the last part of the paragraph? She said, I have my rights. I am not accused of any crime. I am not leaving this room. Does your paragraph in your transcript have the word accused after not?

Can you play the video, sir?

Speak to the microphone, please. Please play the video again. Speak to the microphone. Tech is

instructed to play the video. Witness is instructed to speak to the mic.

You learned to answer me in the middle of the night. I have my rights. I am not a victim

of any crime. I am not leaving this room.

More. Play, please.

Okay, ma'am. That's all, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am.

Wait. Back. Any other question?

I'm sorry, ma'am, kasi I understand. Ma'am, this is my last question and I'm very much sorry.

I am not leaving this room. I am here in the House of Representatives detention facility for five days until the hearing on Monday. Nobody can just come in here and demand to transfer me in the middle of the night. I have my rights. I don't have any

right to live in this room.

Is the word accused in your transcript?

What I heard is root, sir.

The root?

Of any crime. The root of any crime. Yes, sir.

Let's play 001238.

Can you please go to 001238?

[unclear recorded speech]

Please. Your Honor, please. I am now registering my objection. As to the relevance, Your Honor, please, if I may explain. Of this line of questioning, Your Honor, please, if I may.

Counsel may explain his objection. Your

Honor, please. This witness already identified the video containing the

contents of that press conference on November 23, 2024.

And the counsel is now confronting. This witness, whether there are minuscule portions of the two-hour video like detainee, accused, whether this appear in the transcription. Now the question, the basis for the objection is irrelevant. How can it be relevant? How can it be relevant assuming but not conceding that these two minuscule words, detainee and accused, are not reflected? In the transcript, when in fact this witness said he investigated not only on the basis of the transcript, but on the basis of the video that he himself viewed, what's the relevance?

Overruled part of cross to test the accuracy and the truthfulness of the witness insofar as his transcription of the video is concerned. Thank you. Counsel may proceed.

Thank you. Please play again 001238.

[unclear recorded speech]

And then they called my lawyer and I really apologized. I said, you know that letter to the Commission on Audit was really a position of the agency. It is our stand. Like all, di ba? Meron kang points na gusto mo i-raise. We respectfully raised our points to the Commission on Audit. Alam ko hindi naman po yung malay kasi that was our right as an agency because there was an ongoing audit investigation. Pero hindi naman namin kinukuha.

Did you hear the Vice President speaking? I don't hear. Can you please play again?

Mr. Calilung, you are reminded please answer through the microphone.

Can you please play it again?

Marca, will you let me go? So we filed our MR, they did not rule on it, but suddenly they were able to come out with an order, ruling to transfer me to the Women's Correctional.

There.

Did you hear that?

There are sounds, but I can't distinguish the words. Can

you play it again?

Your

Honor, Ash can

answer it.

What's the point? Okay, we're withdrawn, Your Honor. No further questions.

No

further questions. Are we done?

On cross-council, do you have redirect?

Of course, Your Honor, please. For the utter failure of the...

I was

hoping

you won't, but... For

the utter failure

of the respondent...

Council, before I recognize counsel for the prosecutor, Senator Judge Tulfo Rafi is recognized. Your Honor, sorry,

may I move to strike that statement of the...

How can it be, Your Honor? That's my manifestation. I'm about to answer the question of the presiding officer.

We will review the journal tomorrow. I did not even hear anything. This is strikeable counsel. But we will review the journal tomorrow.

Your Honor, he said for the utter failure of the respondent.

Yes, Your Honor, I said

for

the utter failure of the respondent to debunk the material points testified to by the witness yesterday. Your Honor, he is testifying. I'm not done either. He is still testifying. I'm about to answer the question.

I'm not yet done with the answer. Councils, please. The presiding officer is not recognized, either of you. Thank you. Thank you. Kindly settle down. Senator Judge Rafi Tulfoy is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Sir, you may proceed.

Clarification of appointment, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, what is your experience with regards to social media analytics?

I have training, sir.

What

kind of training?

I have cybercrime investigation training, sir.

Okay. Are you familiar with Facebook or do you have SOCMED accounts that would make you a little bit knowledgeable when it comes to SOCMED? Yes, sir. What is your account? What is your social media account? I

have an account in Facebook, in Instagram,

in X. X. So that means pretty much you're a little bit familiar with Facebook, right? Yes, Your Honor. Okay.

There were concerns, Mr. Witness, whether the videos presented yesterday are AI-generated or authentic. So are you experienced enough analyzing whether a video is AI-generated or authentic? Yes, Your Honor. What makes you say that?

Based on my experience, Your Honor, and the video itself, it's two hours long. Normally, an AI-generated video will only last a short second, sir.

So the video that was presented yesterday where we saw the VP was saying something or talking to that effect. Did you do something or what kind of system did you observe or follow to ensure whether that video was AI generated or authentic?

Based on personal observation, sir.

Personal observation?

Yes, Your Honor.

Okay. A few more questions. Therefore, will you be able to say that the video presented yesterday were AI-generated authentic?

The video presented today is what is being seen on the Facebook, sir.

Okay. So based on your affidavit, you mentioned that the NBA subpoenaed some members of the media who are participants of the online press con on November 23, 2024. Yes, Your Honor. And subsequently, you said that you questioned and investigated these persons regarding the conduct of that press conference. So based on what you gathered from your investigation, so I have a few questions, right? Yes, Your Honor. Who set up the press conference?

Based on our interview, sir, it is the office of the Vice President, sir.

So it wasn't spur of the moment, press conference?

I can't confirm, sir, but it's the response of the media

personnel that we interviewed. Okay. Who invited the participants?

If my memory serves me right, it's J. C. Kahinihinan, sir.

Okay. Who

is J. C.?

Staff of the Office of the Vice President, sir.

Okay. Who are the participants? And how many participants were there, if you can remember?

As far as I remember, it's at least 40.

Forty. Okay. Were there mainstream media or anybody from the broadsheets at that time? There are, sir. There were? Yes, sir. Do you know how many

approximately,

give or take?

The one that we have issued subpoena, sir. At least six, sir.

Six. Okay. What was the reach of the video on that very day? Like how many views on that very day and then a few days later? Were you able to observe that?

I can't remember, sir.

You can't remember.

Okay. How did it spread or how did it spread in SOCMED, the videos that were presented yesterday, as far as you know, when you did an investigation? It became trending, sir. It became trending. And my last question is,

because it was established here as inciting to sedition on top of the so-called grave threat. What were the comments that you noticed in the video? Can you give us an example?

One of the comments, because on the video, November 23, they were mentioned about people power when asked a question by Princess Maui. And the Vice President responded, agreed.

Dahl, ang laban ay wala sa EDSA nasa Malacanang and there are responses from the comments but it's not documented. That is agreeing, sir.

No further question, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Senator Judge Tulfo. Senator Judge Aquino thereafter, Senator Judge Pangilinan. Senator Judge Aquino has two minutes in the procedure.

Maraming salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Calilung, Canina may nabanggit na dalawang affidavit. Yes. Isang Januari at isang Febrari. Yung Januari ay binalik sa inyo. Tama po ba?

Yes, Your Honor.

And there were seven grounds why it was returned to you. Is that correct? Seven points. May, can you narrate what are these seven points that were, that you addressed? Is that the correct term that you addressed in the second affidavit?

Yes, Your Honor. Can

you name them please?

May I have the… Certificate, sir.

The

certification, was it counsel for the respondent?

Your Honor, may

I... Yes,

you may approach and show him the document being alluded to by Senator Judge Aquino.

Note 1. There is no affidavit of the person who recorded the video entitled BP November 23 Prescon at Batasan through open broadcast Superstudio and in turn starred in the DVD.

Number 2. The press briefing conducted on October 18, 2024 was not recorded and or stored in DVD and there was no TSN of the said briefing and the necessary affidavit to the person taking the TSN. 3. Annex I and K DVD with markings NBICCN-C-24-12436-2 and NBI-CCN-C-24-12436-2

4. Annex L. did not indicate who made the TSN. There was also no affidavit of the person who made the TSN. 5. The affidavit of Juan Patricia Morales mentioned that she stored the footage in a USB and submitted to the NBI. However, the USB There was no USB attached to the complaint. Only DVD was attached. There was no detail regarding the content of this DVD. 6. Only the minutes of meeting with several personalities and representatives from various media outfits were submitted. Although the minutes were signed, there was no individual affidavit executed regarding to the contents of the said minutes. 7. One of the elements of crime of grave threat is that the offender threatens another With the infliction upon the latter's person, honor, and property, or upon that of the latter's family, or if the wrong amounting into a crime. In the instant complaint, only the NBI executed an affidavit, and there was no participation on the part of the offended party, as it appears in the NBI is not the offended party of the crime of grave threat.

Okay, so nakuha mo yung nagsubmit kayo, yan yung binalik sa inyo. And then you did your best to correct all those items, is that correct? Yes, Your Honor. Okay, the first six are technical, no? Yes, Your Honor. Yung panghuli is a matter of who is the offended party. Yes, Your Honor.

Hindi niyo na-correct yan? Or nung binalik ninyo, it was accepted already by the DOJ, is

that correct?

There is an explanation, Your Honor, that was included in the letter of the former director, Judge Jaime Santiago, sir. In the filing for preliminary investigation, it is not required for the victim to execute a complaint affidavit.

That

is the answer of the NBI? Yes, Your Honor. And once you submitted, it was accepted by the DOJ?