By Dean Aubrey Caratiquet and Brian Campued
On Monday, July 13, the House prosecution panel presented its second witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) BARMM Regional Director Atty. Jeremy Lotoc, as the Senate Impeachment Court hears Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte.
This Tuesday, July 14, the defense team of Duterte continued its cross-examination of Dir. Lotoc while the senator-judges focused on expounding what constitutes a grave threat as well as the alleged “Operation Romanov” in connection with the vice president’s statements against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Here are the highlights of today’s trial:
- Atty. Mark Vinluan, the counsel for the respondent, showed a clip of the Nov. 23, 2024 online press conference of Vice President Sara Duterte and asked Lotoc whether he can confirm that the vice president’s statements in the clips happened “in real life.”
House private prosecutor Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan objected to the defense’s line of questioning, arguing that the witness was not competent to answer the question.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero also said he found the question confusing and sustained the prosecution’s objection.
Escudero: “The witness is incompetent to testify as to the truth of the matter stated by the vice president. He can only testify as to the fact that those statements were made, only as to tenor, but not as to the truth, given that he only investigated and was not there.”
Vinluan: “In other words, your honor, we would like to manifest, your honor, based on that ruling of the court, that even if VP Sara said that she already talked to a person—then we cannot confirm the truth because this witness has no personal knowledge.”
Ligutan raised a counter-manifestation, saying, “The defense is entitled to their own conception of things. They’re entitled to their own imagination.”
- The defense played a video clip of BBM Podcast Episode 1 (published May 2025), which shows President Marcos Jr. saying he was open to reconciling with the Dutertes.
Vinluan asked Lotoc if the President believed that the vice president would not harm him. Lotoc said he cannot know that and cannot establish the state of mind of the President just based on the clip presented.
Lotoc then explained how the media personalities present in the Nov. 23, 2024 online press conference and the eventual statements of the President and other government agencies were interwoven in the conduct of the investigation on VP Sara’s case.
- Senator-judges asked Lotoc about the origins of “Operation Romanov,” which was also said by vlogger “Princess Maui” in the Nov. 23, 2024 press conference.
Lotoc said their open-source investigation traced the first use of the term during a January 2024 rally where Davao City Mayor Baste Duterte used it as a warning to the First Family, not a threat against the vice president.
Lotoc added that they also invited the vlogger to shed light on her claims but did not appear or answer their invitation.
Asked by Senator-judge Erwin Tulfo how the NBI rated Princess Maui’s statement, Lotoc said, “hindi po reliable insofar as the cybercrime division is concerned.”
- When asked by Senator-judge Bong Go how they can reconcile the fact that the vice president discouraged her supporters from going to the streets with the claim of inciting to sedition, Lotoc cited jurisprudence, saying that it’s not necessary to have an “actual sedition.”
According to Lotoc, the law “also penalizes if the seditious words would encourage people to do illegal acts or to overthrow the government.”
He noted that when they scrutinized Duterte’s statements on Oct. 8, Nov. 23, and Nov. 26, 2024, they found utterances “that would stir up the people against the government.”
- Senator-judge Pia Cayetano asked both counsels as well as the witness about their appreciation of grave threats.
Cayetano: Dapat ba na ang supposed victim nakaramdam talaga siya ng threats or is it enough that the general public considers the statement threatening?
Atty. Ligutan cited two decisions of the Supreme Court, saying there is no law requiring a private complainant, and no requirement that the recipient feel threatened or take the threat seriously.
Ligutan: “Sinabi ng Supreme Court doon, wala pong batas na nagre-require na may private complainant—ibig sabihin, hindi po required na yung biktima mag-execute ng affidavit upang yung akusado puwedeng ma-found guilty ng grave threats. But more than that, may isang kaso pa. No less than the Supreme Court, sinabi doon, hindi po kailangan na yung recipient mismo nakaramdam ng takot o sineryoso yung pagbabanta. To repeat, ito ang sinabi ng Supreme Court: ‘All that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect.’”
Atty. Vinluan stressed that the statements of Duterte “were not threats in the first place,” but were merely responses to questions, and that these were never aimed at offended parties.
Vinluan: “In other words, had they not watched the video, for example, they wouldn’t have known about it. So there were no threats to begin with. And so even the discussion on the elements is not really applicable insofar as determining the innocence or guilt of the vice president.”
Atty. Lotoc said that among the things they consider is whether the offender actually uttered the remarks and the manner by which these were delivered.
Lotoc: “In fact, ang basis po namin diyan yung Garma vs. People. Ang isa ho doon sa sinabi ng Garma vs. People, hindi ho kailangan na ma-intimidate o itrato ng recipient na seryoso yung threat na yan. Ang sufficient na, na maipakita lang na iyon yung intensyon ng offender na ma-intimidate at i-treat na seryoso yung utterances o threatening remarks na ginawa niya.”
- Cayetano asked Lotoc: “What is the difference between a warning and a threat? At what point does a warning become a threat?”
Lotoc: “In my own opinion… a warning is, maybe there is what we call an event-based condition… ‘Pag inulit mo ito, ito ang gagawin ko sa iyo.’ Puwede hong warning iyon.
Yung threat, your honor, ‘pag ang threat is with a condition, puwede ho siyang mag-fall nang ganoon: ‘Pag ginawa mo ito, ito ang gagawin sa iyo, papatayin kita…’
So para siyang nag-o-overlap, depende sa appreciation ng investigator… But insofar as the NBI Cybercrime Division is concerned, what we did is we established the elements of the grave threats based on the surrounding facts and circumstances. And we concluded that indeed nag-violate ang bise presidente.”
- The defense pointed out the discrepancies in the affidavits and documents of the NBI, questioning Lotoc’s statement that their case against the vice president was airtight.
Lotoc: “The existence of these typographical errors does not alter the fact that the video exists; does not alter the fact that the Vice President uttered those statements; does not alter the fact na ang NBI mayroon findings, at ang findings nila the Vice President committed the crime of grave threats and inciting to sedition.”
- During the prosecution’s redirect examination of Lotoc, Atty. Ligutan asked Lotoc what the emotional state of the vice president was during the Nov. 23, 2024 press conference.
Lotoc: “It shows na hindi ho nagbibiro ‘yung bise presidente nung inutter niya ang utterances noong November 23, at the same time ‘yung pagiging furious niya. At yun nga, sabi ko ‘yung fumingly mad noong November 2023 dala niya hanggang doon sa November 26 kasi ni-reiterate po niya, your honor, at in-admit niya na mayroon siyang kinausap na tao to take revenge.
The utterances were not a product of a temporary fit of anger or a spur-of-the-moment. In other words, the utterances, the threat, was real and was serious.”
- House private prosecutor Atty. Lorna Kapunan said they will not be presenting their next witnesses, OVP Chief of Staff Atty. Zuleika Lopez and Captain Belinda Bello of the House Legislative Security Bureau, in relation to Article IV.
- As no witnesses will be presented on Wednesday, July 15, the Impeachment Court said it will instead hold oral arguments on the prosecution’s request for subpoenas covering Vice President Duterte’s tax and bank records.
Escudero said after the oral arguments, the senator-judges will go into caucus and will decide on the question of the two subpoenas.
-jpv
