July 7, 2026

Before testimony began, Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero confirmed that his prior statement requiring 16 affirmative votes for conviction was a ruling of the chair that stood because no senator-judge had objected or appealed; Alan Peter Cayetano placed a continuing objection on record and said a written submission would follow.

Prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan said the Vice President was a prospective hostile witness and asked about her appearance; the chair answered that the rules did not require Duterte to attend while represented by counsel and reserved action on any subpoena request until one was formally made.

Prosecutor Lorenz Defensor introduced Article IV as alleging threats and related constitutional offenses. The chair immediately instructed senator-judges that his introduction was not evidence, then denied the defense motion to strike it while repeating that it must not be treated as evidentiary.

The prosecution called NBI Senior Agent John Mark Sta. Ana Calilung as its first witness. After the defense sought his exclusion on the ground that he and his evidence were not included in the original complaints or articles, the chair denied the motion and allowed the direct examination to proceed.

Calilung described requesting preservation from Meta, screen-recording the November 23 livestream with OBS, manually comparing the recording with the source, and generating a hash value for the recorded output. The court later played the prosecution's selected November 23 and October 18 clips.

The prosecution ended Calilung's direct examination after withdrawing a final leading question. The court deferred the defense cross-examination to July 8 and kept Calilung under the same subpoena.

The Chair made the procedural directions on the disputed quorum and voting issue and managed the resulting senator-judge clarifications.

The Chair ruled on the parties’ evidentiary presentation and video-authentication process, including counsel’s objections and the sequence of questioning.

Sen. Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero stated: "Mr. Witness, when you say Annex B, you're referring to Exhibit P-4-25C."

Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson asked whether the Presiding Officer's previous statement that conviction requires 16 votes, coupled with its reference to judicial review, was a personal legal opinion or a ruling of the Impeachment Court. If it was a ruling, he asked whether it created a justiciable controversy the Supreme Court could resolve should either panel challenge it as grave abuse of discretion.

Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan clarified that the Chair's stated figure of 16 concerned only the two-thirds threshold for conviction. He said the separate question whether Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada should participate in the trial could be discussed later in camera or on the floor. He later asked John Mark Sta. Ana Calilung whether his computer-forensics training extended beyond the initial two weeks. Calilung said it continued through on-the-job training by his chief; he said the initial training was held at the NBI office and handled by MaxCore Interventures, the provider of the bureau's forensic software.

Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano maintained a continuing objection to the Chair's 16-vote ruling, arguing that Senators Rodante Marcoleta and Jinggoy Estrada should participate because excluding a still-serving senator from voting would effectively count toward acquittal. If the prosecution sought a subpoena for Vice President Duterte, he proposed advance memoranda so senator-judges could study the impeachment-specific self-incrimination issue before oral argument. He also urged the Court to view the complete November 23 recording, or an agreed contextual portion, before selected clips. On authentication, he asked how Calilung could verify that a screen-recorded copy was the same as the Facebook original when their hashes differed; Calilung said the hash covered only the recorded file and that he manually compared the videos. Cayetano later objected that the prosecution had to let Calilung describe the video before asking about particular alleged threats, rather than use a leading question without that foundation.

Sen. Pia S. Cayetano asked the defense to repeat the third item in its objection to the witness's offered testimony so senators could follow the precise ground. After the Chair read the item as the NBI agent's cybercrime-unit role, defense counsel corrected that its objection instead concerned items four and eight. She later supported the Presiding Officer's observation that the prosecutor's remarks resembled a closing statement. She said allowing such arguments short-circuited the process before the evidence could be assessed for admissibility, and asked the Chair to correct senator-judges' improper questions as well. She then moved to strike the prosecution's statements from the record as improper.

Sen. Joel Villanueva asked Calilung to explain OBS and its use in the investigation. Calilung said it is publicly available open-source software with livestreaming and screen-recording functions. Villanueva also asked about its capabilities and the considerations investigators apply to recordings made with it; Calilung said it captures what appears on screen and produces an output he manually compared with the livestream to authenticate it.

Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo said Rule 132, Section 17 does not require the entire record to be shown to the Court, distinguishing playback of a video in open court from its admission as evidence. He later asked whether Calilung's background in photo-and-video authentication consisted of two years' experience plus two weeks' training. Calilung said he had training abroad and in other digital-forensics fields, but the two weeks were specific to photo and video. Tulfo then asked whether he examined comments on the video; Calilung said some supported Vice President Duterte's statement, but they were not documented.

Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III said he had not caught the exact words of the witness's preceding statement. The witness then repeated that Duterte had said she would dig up Senator Imee Marcos's father and throw him into the West Philippine Sea.

Sen. Erwin Tulfo asked what the notes were, who had prepared them and when, whether the defense had received them, whether they had been submitted as evidence, and whether Calilung was using them to refresh his recollection. Calilung identified them as his investigator's notes made during the investigation. When Tulfo pressed for the actual copy, Calilung said their contents were included in his investigation affidavit; Tulfo noted that the notes themselves had not been provided. He later proposed that senator-judges receive copies of any already-prepared sworn statement for the next witness before the hearing, so it could guide questioning and avoid a repeat of the document dispute. The Chair replied that the Court had not adopted the judicial-affidavit rule because testimony would be given in open court, but directed the clerk to endeavor to provide senator-judges the pre-marked annexes to the pretrial order and briefs.

Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked what common features linked the October and November videos and why the statements were impeachable if they did not prove that Duterte had actually hired an assassin. She said she was testing their materiality to the impeachment articles.

Senate President Sherwin T. Gatchalian pressed Calilung on how open-source investigation and manual video comparison could verify authenticity, including independent checking, governing standards, accreditation, and court acceptance.

The prosecution characterized Article IV as alleging betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, and high crimes arising from Duterte's publicly recorded statements about having someone kill the President, First Lady, and former House Speaker if she were killed.

The prosecution offered Calilung to establish his digital-forensics background, his role as agent on case, and his collection, preservation, and authentication of the November 23 recording and related digital material.

On the selected-video dispute, prosecution counsel argued that Rule 132 allowed it to present the portions it considered relevant and left the defense free to inquire into or present the remainder.

Responding to Risa Hontiveros, prosecution counsel acknowledged that the statements did not by themselves prove with certainty that Duterte actually contracted an assassin, but argued that the October and November statements showed an asserted plan, intent, knowledge, or system and supported the charged betrayal of public trust.

When the defense identified absent annexes, prosecution counsel described the June 11 affidavit as a summary of the earlier authentication affidavits rather than disputing that the referenced annexes were not attached to that copy.

The defense argued that Calilung and evidence not included with the originating complaints or articles should be excluded and linked that objection to its pending constitutional challenge to the prosecution's process.

The defense repeatedly maintained that photocopies bearing later certified-true-copy markings were not faithful reproductions of the electronic records or of the copies marked at pretrial, and it reserved objections to authenticity and admissibility.

The defense argued that playing selected minutes from the November 23 recording would omit context necessary to understand the statements and manifested that it intended to present the complete recording later in the proceeding.

Near the end of direct examination, the defense itemized referenced materials absent from the June 11 affidavit copy, including preservation correspondence, recordings, hash material, transcripts, and other annexes, and the chair confirmed that the annexes through KK were not attached.

Calilung identified himself as a 31-year-old NBI senior agent and testified that his training included computer and mobile forensics and photo-and-video authentication.

He testified that the NBI asked Meta to preserve the November 23 livestream and that he retained a screenshot of the preservation request. He said he screen-recorded the source with OBS, manually compared the output with the source, and calculated a hash on the recorded output.

Under questioning by Alan Peter Cayetano, Calilung clarified that the source and screen-recorded video would have different hashes and that he authenticated sameness by manual comparison. Under questioning by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian, he said he had no personal knowledge of an international accreditation body for the procedure he followed.

The court played a selected portion of the November 23 recording in which Duterte spoke about instructions to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez if she were killed. The digest records this as material played in court, not as a finding that any contract existed.

The court also played selected October 18 excerpts in which Duterte spoke about imagining strangling someone, said the sitting President did not know how to be president, told Senator Imee Marcos that she had threatened to dig up the senator's father and throw him into the West Philippine Sea, and said the country had no “number one” for her.

Calilung identified screenshots and recordings of reactions attributed to the President, the former House Speaker, the Presidential Communications Office, the AFP, PNP, and National Security Council. The court played recordings of statements by Marcos and Romualdez; the other materials were identified during direct examination but remained subject to later formal offer and objection.

Calilung testified that the NBI team executed an affidavit of investigation, recommended charges, and filed the affidavit and annexes with the Department of Justice. This was testimony about an investigative recommendation and filing, not a court finding of criminal liability.

The record documented several document-quality problems: Calilung said some interview attachments were unreadable, the chair confirmed unreadable exhibits, and the summary affidavit copy lacked the annexes it referenced.

In the November 23 recording played in court, Duterte said, "No joke."

Asked how he established that the source and recorded videos matched, Calilung answered, "I manually compared, Your Honor."

Risa Hontiveros framed the evidentiary question directly: "none of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one."

The presiding officer reminded senator-judges to "take note only of the pieces of evidence presented through a witness under oath and subject to cross-examination" rather than counsel's factual or legal conclusions.

Calilung's cross-examination had not begun when the session adjourned; it was scheduled for July 8 under the same subpoena.

The admissibility and weight of the challenged photocopies, authentication affidavits, flash drives, screenshots, and related documentary material remained for formal offer and later court rulings.

The defense had not yet presented the complete November 23 recording that it said was necessary for context; the court preserved its right to do so during its own presentation.

Pia Cayetano's motion to strike the prosecution's extended response to Hontiveros remained tabled pending transcript review and later court action.

The prosecution reserved the possibility of seeking Duterte's testimony, but had not yet filed its request; the chair said the court would act only after a motion or subpoena request was made or filed.

The chair's 16-vote threshold ruling remained in force, while Cayetano's continuing objection and promised written submission preserved disagreement over the issue.