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 presiding officer treated the 16-vote threshold as a ruling of the chair that remained in force because it had not been objected to or appealed by a member of the court.

The chair ruled that the impeachment rules did not require the respondent to attend hearings while represented by counsel and said the court would decide any request to call or subpoena her only after a motion was filed.

The court allowed Defensor five minutes for an Article IV introduction and promised the defense the same opportunity, but expressly directed that the introduction was not evidence. It denied the defense request to strike the remarks while preserving that non-evidentiary instruction.

The chair denied the defense motion to exclude Calilung, reasoning that the prosecution could rely on evidence or witnesses not exhaustively listed in the articles when they had been disclosed in its pretrial brief; the defense's continuing objection was preserved.

On objections to the prosecution's authentication affidavit and related copies, the chair said admissibility would be decided at formal offer after the prosecution rested. The chair nevertheless advised both parties to present originals at trial when no exception to the original-document rule applied.

The court overruled the defense objection to showing only a two-minute-and-18-second portion of the November 23 recording, while allowing the defense to present the complete recording during its own case and requiring representatives of both sides to accompany the USB to the technical booth.

The chair sustained a hearsay objection to using Calilung to relay a deceased interviewee's account, then allowed testimony only as to the fact and tenor of what interviewees told him, not as proof that their accounts were true.

After Pia Cayetano moved to strike a prosecution response that she characterized as an improper closing statement, the chair tabled the motion and said the court would review the transcript and decide it later.

The chair confirmed on the record that the annexes referenced through Annex KK were not attached to the summary authentication affidavit then being presented.

Alan Peter Cayetano examined the authentication method, including why a hash produced from the screen-recorded output differed from the online source and whether Calilung's comparison was manual.

Raffy Tulfo distinguished between playing a video in court and treating it as evidence, and said the rule he cited did not require the entire record to be shown at that stage.

Risa Hontiveros asked how the statements supported impeachment when the presentation had not shown that an assassin was actually contracted; she later clarified that her intervention concerned materiality and was not a closing statement.

Pia Cayetano moved to strike a prosecution response she considered improper. The chair tabled the motion rather than resolving it during the sitting.

Sherwin Gatchalian asked about standards for manual video comparison, international acceptance, and accreditation; Calilung said he had no personal knowledge of an international standard or accreditation for that method.

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.