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 allowed the respondent an opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s earlier witness-withdrawal discussion, subject to comparable time limits.

The Chair allowed limited credibility testing with documents while maintaining stated objections and conditions on their use.

The Chair ordered safeguards for review and replay of the video material and later issued subpoena and scheduling directions.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano withdrew her motion in the interest of fairness, saying she was amenable to allowing the prosecution the same latitude for a closing-like statement. She said rules were necessary to keep the proceeding orderly and that senator-judges should call the Chair's attention to possible violations when justice required it.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano asked the Secretariat to install a monitor for the front-row senator-judges, saying the existing viewing position caused neck strain during videos and made affidavits difficult to read.

Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino asked John Mark Sta. Ana Calilung to explain the seven deficiencies that led the DOJ to return the first affidavit. Calilung said the first six were technical or evidentiary defects that the NBI addressed; on the final question of whether the NBI was the offended party in a grave-threat case, he said former NBI Director Jaime Santiago's letter explained that a victim's complaint affidavit was not required at preliminary investigation. Calilung said the DOJ then certified that the evidence was sufficient to proceed. Aquino also established that Calilung had investigated the videos, not the alleged hitman, and reserved further questions for a witness on that subject.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked how the government assesses a reported threat against the President and what weight its security response should carry in evaluating the allegation. John Mark Sta. Ana Calilung said he could not speak for the National Security Council or other institutions, but that as an NBI agent he considered whether a threat was active, the speaker's capacity to carry it out, and the manner of delivery, including whether it was presented as serious rather than a joke. Villanueva tested whether public office alone supplied that capability; Calilung said it was not the only consideration. Villanueva then clarified that the affidavit submitted to the House was the February version that had complied with DOJ requirements, not the January affidavit first submitted to the DOJ.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian asked why the NBI subpoenaed six of about 40 people who attended the November 23 press conference. Calilung said investigators selected people they could confirm were present, especially those whose faces and names appeared because they asked questions; all six said they had attended and heard the Vice President's remarks. Gatchalian then examined Calilung's two-week training through MaxCorp Interventures. Calilung said it was bundled with the procurement of digital-forensics tools and covered both their use and the broader process; he distinguished the equipment supplier from the trainer it provided, saying the trainer had digital-forensics certifications but he could not recall them beyond CompTIA and ethical-hacking credentials. Asked about his own qualifications, Calilung distinguished the MaxCorp certificate of training from his certification as a computer-hacking forensic investigator. When Gatchalian asked whether he held a certification specifically for forensic examination of video and similar material, Calilung's answer was incomplete in the record and did not identify a distinct video-forensics credential.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked whether the NBI's statutory authority to investigate threats to the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker, and Chief Justice, particularly those implicating national security, also allowed it to file a case without a request from the threatened official. John Mark Sta. Ana Calilung said the bureau investigates those threats and files a case when its evidence establishes a crime. Tulfo then tested whether the bureau must first ask the official to pursue the matter despite the affidavit process; Calilung said the NBI had submitted the matter for preliminary investigation even without a complaint.

Sen. Imee Marcos asked for clearly identified copies so senator-judges could follow the documentary sequence rather than navigate annex labels such as FFFGGG. She requested the January 30 NBI affidavit of investigation; the February 5 Justice Department certification identifying seven grounds for insufficient preliminary investigation; the revised affidavit of authentication and its accompanying material; the February 14 certification finding the revised affidavit sufficient; and the later investigation data form. The Chair said the Court held the documents pre-marked at pretrial, while documents used only in cross-examination had not yet been formally offered; the Clerk would provide what it had, subject to later admissibility rulings. Marcos reiterated that the materials should be adequately identified and assembled promptly.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla referred to the DOJ's February 5 certification listing seven deficiencies and the February 14 certification that allowed preliminary investigation, asking whether they had been addressed. Calilung said he believed so. Padilla then asked whether the NBI had an affidavit from the original recorder and the raw video file rather than an internet copy. Calilung said DOJ required his affidavit as the screen recorder, that he had recorded a publicly available video, and that the NBI had not obtained the original file.

Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson asked how reliably an AI-generated video can be distinguished from an original and whether the NBI had used its digital-forensics tools. Calilung said it was difficult; he named NCASE Forensic, Cellebrite, and Amped Authenticator, but said he used OBS because the two-hour video was too long and Amped Authenticator only detects inconsistent frame rates. Lacson pressed the provenance and chain-of-custody issue: whether a Facebook screen recording, without the original file, could be authenticated. Calilung said he compared the screen recording with the original and found identical contents; Lacson said original media and forensic analysis were important safeguards, particularly given AI.

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" Padilla asked that Calilung's certifications be produced so the Court could verify them. Calilung said he had the certifications from the investigation period; Padilla asked that they be submitted, and the Chair directed submission.

After the first witness took about nine hours, Sen. Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino appealed to both parties to keep later examinations direct and focused so the evidence and each side's points would be easier for the public and senator-judges to follow. He called it a plea rather than an order.

The prosecution opposed using Calilung to prove the truth of MaxCore partnership papers and challenged newly introduced, unpremarked cross-examination documents.

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.

The defense used MaxCore's partnership papers and website to question the basis for Calilung's photo-and-video authentication training.

The defense relied on the February 5 DOJ certification to argue that the first NBI referral lacked recorder and transcript affidavits, clear media, journalist affidavits, and participation by 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 used the video concerning Lopez's detention and fear to argue that Duterte's remarks should be read in the context of perceived threats to her aide and family.

In his Article IV response, Vinluan argued that the recording did not prove Duterte contracted an assassin and that the remarks responded to threats against her and her family.

The February 5 DOJ certification recommended returning the referral for case buildup and identified missing recorder and transcript affidavits, unclear media, and absent journalist affidavits.

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 without a private complainant and that he lacked personal knowledge whether the President, First Lady, or former House Speaker filed complaints.

Calilung said he was tasked to investigate the video rather than the alleged hitman and had no personal knowledge of such a person.

Calilung said he assessed the video's authenticity from its length and his own observation, and that he used OBS and manual comparison with the online source rather than the listed forensic tools.

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 invitation to Duterte included threats to her life, that the bureau examined Operation Romanov, and that Princess Maui did not appear after being invited.

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 scheduled Jeremy Lotoc as its next witness for July 13, followed by Zuleika Lopez and Capt. Belinda Belliong; Melvin Matibag's appearance remained dependent on the pace of testimony.