July 8, 2026

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero opened the evidentiary portion by giving defense counsel Carlo Narvasa the same five minutes and 18 seconds previously used by prosecution counsel for an Article IV argument, to be delivered after cross-examination. Pia Cayetano withdrew her earlier motion to strike that prosecution argument in the interest of equal treatment.

Narvasa's cross-examination challenged Calilung's training, the source of his photo-and-video authentication instruction, the completeness of the NBI's investigation papers, and the accuracy of his transcript of the November 23 recording.

The defense confronted Calilung with a February 5 Department of Justice certification recommending case buildup because the referral lacked evidence needed to prove the crimes' elements. Calilung later said the NBI addressed the listed deficiencies and received a second certification that the evidence was sufficient for preliminary investigation.

The court played defense-selected portions of the same prosecution video showing Zuleika Lopez describing her contempt detention, a proposed late-night transfer, fear for her life, and the circumstances that preceded Duterte's remarks. The defense used the clips both to supply context and to test omissions or disputed words in Calilung's transcript.

After Narvasa ended cross-examination, senator-judges questioned Calilung about the DOJ deficiencies, the alleged hitman, the NBI's threat-assessment mandate, his training, the source recording, artificial intelligence, and the tools used for authentication. The prosecution declined redirect examination.

Defense counsel Mark Vinluan then used the allotted response time to argue the defense's view of Article IV. After administrative matters and scheduling, the court adjourned until 2 p.m. on July 13, 2026.

The chair limited use of MaxCore partnership materials to showing what Calilung had read or seen; it instructed senator-judges that he was not competent to establish the truth of the partnership documents' contents.

The chair conditionally allowed cross-examination using documents that had not been introduced through the prosecution's direct examination, provided the defense connected them to testing Calilung's credibility, accuracy, or completeness.

The court overruled the prosecution's relevance objection to questions about small wording differences in Calilung's transcript, holding that the defense could use them on cross-examination to test his accuracy and truthfulness.

When Risa Hontiveros asked defense counsel to explain whether Lopez's circumstances justified Duterte's statements, the chair stopped counsel from placing uncited factual or legal conclusions into the evidentiary record and reserved such argument for the allotted response or closing remarks.

The chair cautioned that the materials used to confront Calilung on cross-examination had not necessarily been premarked or formally offered and said admissibility would be determined only after formal offer. The court undertook to provide senator-judges with the materials held by the clerk and with digital copies of the prosecution's premarked evidence.

The court ordered both parties to submit memoranda on the prosecution's requested subpoena concerning a sealed box that the chair said had been returned untouched to its originating agency. It set Wednesday oral argument on that request together with the bank-record subpoena issue, allotting 10 minutes per side plus three-minute rebuttals before a decision.

After the prosecution clarified its witness plan, the chair ordered a subpoena for Zuleika Lopez and recorded that Melvin Matibag did not need a subpoena for the coming week.

Pia Cayetano withdrew her earlier motion to strike in the interest of fairness and said she was amenable to allowing the prosecution a brief closing statement.

Bam Aquino asked whether Calilung had investigated an actual hitman or only the video statements, and whether the prosecution planned to call another witness with evidence on that allegation.

Risa Hontiveros asked whether the detention and alleged threat context involving Zuleika Lopez prompted Duterte's remarks. The chair limited counsel from supplying uncited factual or legal conclusions in answering for the record.

Alan Peter Cayetano asked why the Presidential Security Group had not been consulted and whether the statement under investigation was conditional; Calilung said the affidavit treated it as conditional.

Panfilo Lacson examined whether artificial intelligence or forensic tools were used, where the source recording came from, and how authentication was performed; Calilung described an OBS screen recording and manual comparison.

Alan Peter Cayetano distinguished a competent witness from an expert witness, and the chair agreed with that distinction while discussing the scope of Calilung's testimony.

The prosecution objected to using Calilung to establish the truth of the MaxCore partnership documents and later challenged the relevance of unpremarked documents introduced for the first time on cross-examination. The chair preserved those objections while allowing limited or conditional use.

In response to Bam Aquino, prosecution counsel said witnesses other than Calilung would address the alleged hitman; Calilung had been presented only for the video investigation.

The prosecution elected not to conduct redirect examination of Calilung and later said Jeremy Lotoc would be presented at the next hearing rather than on July 8.

Prosecutor Lorenz Defensor clarified the intended witness sequence as Jeremy Lotoc on Monday, Zuleika Lopez on Tuesday, and Captain Belinda Belliong on Wednesday, with any appearance by NBI Director Melvin Matibag to depend on the pace of proceedings.

Through cross-examination, the defense used MaxCore's partnership papers and website to question the foundation of Calilung's photo-and-video authentication training. The court permitted the documents only to establish what Calilung had seen, not the truth of their contents.

The defense used the February 5 DOJ certification to argue that the first NBI referral was incomplete, emphasizing absent recorder and transcript affidavits, missing or unclear electronic media, lack of individual journalist affidavits, and nonparticipation by the alleged offended parties.

Narvasa stressed that the NBI initiated and filed the complaint, the DOJ directed the investigation and would assess prosecution, and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. headed the executive branch while being an alleged offended party. This was a defense characterization of the institutional relationship, not a court finding of improper influence.

The defense presented portions of the video about Lopez's detention and fear to argue that Duterte's remarks must be understood in the context of perceived threats to her aide and family; it also used the full exchange to challenge omissions and inaudible words in Calilung's transcript.

In his allotted Article IV response, Vinluan argued that the recording did not prove Duterte contracted an assassin, that her statements were a response to threats against her and her family, and that alleged grave threats or inciting to sedition within first-level-court jurisdiction were not impeachable high crimes. These were defense arguments, not factual or legal findings by the court.

The February 5 DOJ certification read during cross-examination recommended returning the referral for case buildup and listed seven deficiencies. The items included missing affidavits from recorders and transcript makers, missing or unclear video media, no individual affidavits from interviewed journalists, and no participation by the alleged offended parties.

Calilung testified that the revised NBI submission complied with the DOJ's requirements and later received a certification that its evidence was sufficient for preliminary investigation. This was evidence of a threshold prosecutorial assessment, not a criminal conviction or an impeachment-court finding.

Calilung said the NBI began the investigation without a private complainant. He also said he had no personal knowledge whether the President, First Lady, or former House Speaker filed complaints, and the chair confirmed that affidavits from the two journalists discussed on cross were not attached to the February 10 affidavit.

Calilung said he had been tasked to investigate the video rather than the alleged hitman and had no personal knowledge of such a person. He explained that an executive officer called him about a video classified as containing a threat, after which he located the full video and reported it.

When asked how he assessed AI authenticity, Calilung pointed to the video's length and his personal observation. He later told Panfilo Lacson that he used OBS, not the listed forensic tools, for this video and that he authenticated the screen recording by manually comparing it with the online source.

The record distinguished Calilung's role as a competent witness from that of an expert witness: Alan Peter Cayetano raised the distinction, and the presiding officer agreed with it on the record.

Asked by Alan Peter Cayetano about the phrase conditioned on Duterte being killed, Calilung said the NBI affidavit treated the statement as conditional. This was witness testimony, not a court determination of the statement's legal effect.

Calilung said the NBI's invitation to Duterte included investigating threats to her life and that the bureau looked into references to Operation Romanov, but Princess Maui did not appear after being invited. He said he had no personal knowledge of coordination with the Presidential Security Group.

Calilung described the DOJ's later assessment this way: "we complied with the requirements of the DOJ."

On the conditional wording, Calilung said, "Based on our affidavit, sir, I believe it's conditional."

Explaining his authentication position, Calilung said, "The screen recording is the original itself as to my authentication, Sir."

Vinluan stated the defense's core position: "there is no proof of any contracting of an assassin."

The admissibility and weight of the February DOJ certifications, revised NBI affidavit, and other materials first used to confront Calilung on cross-examination remained undecided because the documents had not yet been formally offered.

The alleged hitman's existence and any related evidence remained outside Calilung's assigned investigation; prosecution counsel said another witness or witnesses would address that subject.

The court had not decided the prosecution's subpoena request concerning the sealed box returned to its originating agency or the related bank-record subpoena issue; both were set for memoranda and Wednesday oral argument before a ruling.

The prosecution's next witness was scheduled as Jeremy Lotoc on July 13, followed by Zuleika Lopez and Captain Belinda Belliong; Melvin Matibag's possible appearance remained dependent on the pace of the succeeding testimony.