FULL - Defense's cross examination of NBI witness on VP Sara impeachment trial — GMA News

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Your Honor, may I be allowed to approach a witness? [00:00:08] Speaker 2: You may do so, counsel. [00:00:10] Speaker ?: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:13] Speaker 1: Good afternoon, Mr. Kalilong. Dr. Nunn, sir. During your direct examination, you testified that you were trained on photo and video authentication. [00:00:22] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:00:24] Speaker 1: You said that you were trained for two weeks? [00:00:27] Speaker 3: Specific for photo and video, sir. [00:00:29] Speaker 1: Sir, my questions are answerable by yes or a no. Yes, sir. Could you please constrain yourself to these questions? Unless I tell you, okay? Objection to that, Your Honor, please. And you got this training from Max. Your Honor, I have to make an objection. [00:00:43] Speaker 2: Before counsel for respondent proceeds, counsel for the prosecutor to let the presiding officer recognize you first. Your Honor. [00:00:50] Speaker 4: You are so recognized, sir. What is your objection? Thank you so much. Inasmuch as I would like to accommodate the defense, that in asking the question that the witness is to be limited to a yes or no question, Your Honor, please. Unfortunately, Your Honor, please, that's not sanctioned in the rules. There is nothing in our rules that would allow a defense to constrain a witness even on cross-examination to answer the questions by a yes or no answer. It's not in the rules. So, Your Honor, please, we cannot constrain a witness to answering either a yes or a no. The witness should be able to qualify. The usual answer by the defense is that it could be handled by the prosecution on redirect. But that is not the case, Your Honor, please. So long as there is nothing in the rules that would allow the defense to constrain the witness to answer yes or no, the prosecution will vehemently object to that, Your Honor, please. [00:01:49] Speaker 2: The presiding officer overrules the objection. The counsel for prosecutors can make a continuing objection regarding this matter. But it is the position of the presiding officer that the witness is seasoned enough. According to his testimony yesterday, he has attended over, if I recall correctly, 30 hearings already. So he would know how to respond and to explain if the need would arise. And it's up for counsel for the respondent, if at all, to strike out whatever answers that are not responsive to his question. Counsel for respondent may proceed. Thank you. [00:02:21] Speaker 4: We would abide, Your Honor. We would abide. [00:02:23] Speaker 2: Thank you, counsel for the prosecutors. [00:02:25] Speaker 1: And you testified that you got this training from MaxCore Interventures, correct? Yes, sir. And you said that the training you got from MaxCore Interventures was in digital forensics. [00:02:38] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:02:39] Speaker 1: I have with me in Articles of Partnership of MaxCore Interventures Co. You see that it states that it is the Articles of Partnership of MaxCore Interventures Co. [00:02:52] Speaker 4: Your Honor, may we allow Attorney Stephen Magallion to also approach the witness's stand to peruse the document. And, of course, at this juncture, Your Honor, please, I have to object. [00:03:06] Speaker 1: I have no question yet, Your Honor. [00:03:08] Speaker 4: Yeah. I am objecting to the witness being shown an Articles of Incorporation. Oh, sorry, a partnership of a partnership, Your Honor, please. Anyway, since the question has not been asked, I will -- [00:03:26] Speaker 2: Let us wait for the question, counsel. In the meantime, the presiding officer allows counsel for the prosecutors to examine the document being presented to the witness. [00:03:36] Speaker 1: And, Your Honor, for the reference of the senators, we are flashing this Articles of Partnership on the screens. Sir, please take a look at page two of these articles. Page two, sir. That's here. Page one, page two. Let's read it together, okay? Primary purpose, to engage in the business of trading both import and export of goods on wholesale, retail basis. Do you see that, sir? Yes, sir. Now, on page -- the very same page two. The secondary purpose. Let's read it together again. Own, use, improve, develop, subdivide, sell, exchange, lease of all kinds, including buildings, houses, apartments, and other structures. Do you see that, sir? [00:04:43] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:04:45] Speaker 1: So, after that, in the same page two, the secondary purpose is to print, publish, distribute, buy, sell, acquire, acquire rights, to and generally deal in all kinds of software packages, books, periodicals, newspapers, magazines, journals, and other publications, dealing in or having to do with subjects of all kinds, character, and all acts of things, as much as possible. As may, time to time, be deemed needful, necessary or required. You see that, sir? Yes, sir. [00:05:22] Speaker ?: Thank you, sir. [00:05:23] Speaker 1: Now, I'm showing you a screenshot of the website of this MaxCore Interventures Co. that, it states under, about us. I'm also flashing this on the screen, Your Honors, for these of these, the Senator Judges. [00:05:51] Speaker 4: Your Honor, at this juncture, the prosecution will now manifest that there was no question propounded as to the presentation of the Articles of Partnership. And the Council is now moving forward to the presentation of an alleged website. Therefore, it seems that the Defense Council is the one presenting the documents without propounding any question to this witness. Highly improper, Your Honor, please. Highly improper. The Council should be asking questions and not presenting documents. Highly improper, Your Honor, please. Again, I don't want to put the lawyer on the spot, but that is highly improper. Ask questions. [00:06:45] Speaker 1: Your Honor, I did ask questions. [00:06:47] Speaker 4: No, there was no question. [00:06:48] Speaker 1: Council. [00:06:49] Speaker 2: Can we ask that the transcript be read back? Council, kindly proceed. Thank you. Council for the prosecutors, with understanding that Mr. Calilong is not testifying as to the truth of whatever Council asked him or what he read, because clearly he's not competent. Agreed. To testify as to the truth of what is contained in the Articles of Partnership. However, as to the fact that he read it and saw it, up to that extent, and the Senator judges are so advised as well. So ordered, you may proceed, sir. Thank you, sir. And I am on cross, Your Honor. [00:07:19] Speaker 1: Thank you. Sir, under the words about us, it says, MaxCore Interventures has been established as a one-stop source of different products and services intended for both government and private institutions. Its company tagline, innovation without boundaries, stands true testament to provide customers with quality merchandise, from the simplest to the most sophisticated ones, at very affordable prices. The company places a long-term business relationship through customer satisfaction on top of its priority list, with integrity and honesty as the foundation of the company. It envisions to evolve into excellence amidst the competitive base of information technology. You see that, sir? Yes, sir. Sir, now I'm showing you another screenshot of the website of this MaxCore Interventures Co. You confirmed that I'm also flashing this for the ease of the court. [00:08:30] Speaker 4: Thank you, sir. Your Honor. At this point, Your Honor, please, allowed. The prosecution is allowed. Counsel for the prosecutor is recognized. Your Honor. Not by way of an objection, but a manifestation, Your Honor, please. Your Honor. Wait, wait, wait. [00:09:13] Speaker 1: Before that, I would like to object to your manifestation. Your Honor, there's no objection. Why is the prosecutor allowed to manifest during my cross-examination? [00:09:22] Speaker 2: Counsel for the correspondent, kindly wait for the presiding officer to recognize you. Thank you, Your Honor. What is the desire of the counsel for the prosecutors? [00:09:29] Speaker 4: I would like to put into record the simple fact your order, please. That basis has not yet been laid as to the presentation of these documents. He presented the articles of partnership and screenshots of websites without saying who took these screenshots or from where did the defense get the articles of partnership. That is only by way of manifestation. No need for the court to rule on that, Your Honor, please. Noted. [00:09:59] Speaker 2: Earlier ruling of the presiding officer stands. Counsel may proceed. Your Honor, may I respond? No need counsel. It was not an objection. Please proceed with your cross. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:10:09] Speaker 1: May I also state a manifestation, Your Honor? Your Honor. [00:10:16] Speaker ?: The basis of the defense was laid. For the record, the chair will allow it just this once. Thank you. Please. [00:10:18] Speaker 1: The basis of the defense was laid when we asked him whether he testified that he got his training as an expert witness from MaxCorp Invert Ventures. Counsel, please proceed. Thank you, Your Honor. Sir, could you take a look at this? Under the words, "Our Products." The products seen there are office supplies and equipment. I see that. I see it. The basis of the defense was laid. The basis of the defense was laid when we asked him whether he testified that he got his training as an expert witness from MaxCorp Invert Ventures. That's basis. Counsel, please proceed. Thank you, Your Honor. Sir, could you take a look at this? Under the words, "Our Products." The products seen there are office supplies and equipment. I see equipment, software, and hardware, investigative equipment, hardware, and software, emergency response software, and CCTVs. Do you see that? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Caliulong, are you a lawyer? [00:11:12] Speaker 3: No, sir. [00:11:14] Speaker 1: Yesterday, you testified that you signed the Affidavit of Investigation dated February 10, 2025. Yes, sir. Your Honor, may I request a copy from the prosecution? I think it is Exhibit P-4-3 in series. [00:11:33] Speaker 4: P-4-3 series. Your Honor, please. Manifestation. The witness, number one, mentioned the Affidavit of Investigation. But that the witness did not identify the documents. So for the record, Your Honor, please. That document is not yet presented in courts as the documentary evidence, Your Honor, please. It is entirely improper for the defense to elicit that document through this witness, precisely because this witness did not yet identify the Affidavit of Investigation, Your Honor, please. [00:12:16] Speaker 2: Which exhibit is this? I believe he did, Counsel, but which exhibit is this? [00:12:20] Speaker 1: Exhibit P-4-3 to Exhibit P-4-3 BB, Your Honor. Your Honor, please. [00:12:27] Speaker 4: If I may, it was not yet identified, but it's pre-marked, Your Honor, please, to be presented by our next witness, Attorney Jeremy Lotok. So highly improperly, as much as we want to accommodate the defense. [00:12:37] Speaker 2: Ah, so who is the signatory in that document? [00:12:40] Speaker 1: Is it, Your Honor, Mr. Kalilong is a signatory to that document. [00:12:48] Speaker 2: Is one of the signatories. Yes. Is one of the signatories. But the Council for Prosecutors is correct. This document has not yet been identified by any of the witnesses for the Council for the Prosecutors. Yes. You will get your chance, Counsel, for the Respondent. When Attorney Lotok testifies later, which I believe is the only exhibit that he will be testifying to. All right, Your Honor. [00:13:21] Speaker 1: Kindly proceed, Counsel. You mentioned an Affidavit of Investigation, correct? Yes, sir. And this Affidavit of Investigation, you sent a copy to the House of Representatives Committee on Justice. Yes, sir. I'm showing you now an Affidavit of Investigation. This is marked as Exhibit D-4-46 in series, Your Honor. [00:13:55] Speaker 2: D-4-46 in series, Is there a counterpart marking from the Council for Prosecutors? Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. [00:14:13] Speaker 1: This is P-1, P-4-3 to P-4-3BB. Thank you. For the record. This Affidavit of Investigation has appendages, correct? Annexes. [00:14:29] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:14:30] Speaker 1: Okay. Sir, do you confirm that you signed this? [00:14:41] Speaker 3: I'm one of the signatories, sir. [00:14:43] Speaker 1: Do you want me to have my significant signature? Okay. Your Honor, do you have -- Oh, here, sir. [00:14:53] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:14:54] Speaker 1: So, sir, that you have your friends, uh -- I withdraw, Your Honor. Apart from this Affidavit of Investigation dated February 10, are you aware if there is another Affidavit of Investigation executed by the NBI represented by the Cybercrime Division in relation to this case? [00:15:18] Speaker 3: Uh, this is the only one that is submitted, sir. No. [00:15:22] Speaker 1: Executed. Sir. My question is -- [00:15:25] Speaker 4: The defense cannot argue with the witness, Your Honor, please. [00:15:28] Speaker 2: The witness would know how to respond, counsel. If, um, he is not responsive to your question, do not argue with the witness. Yes, Your Honor. [00:15:36] Speaker ?: Can I give your phrase? [00:15:37] Speaker 1: Apart from this Affidavit of Investigation, are you aware if there is any other Affidavit of Investigation signed by the NBI represented by the Cybercrime? [00:15:49] Speaker 4: Okay. I have to object. Vague, Your Honor. Affidavit of Investigation signed by the NBI. Related to this case, Your Honor. There could be thousands of documents. [00:15:57] Speaker 2: Related to this case. If the witness knows. Witness may answer. No. Is there any other Affidavit of Investigation executed by the NBI Cybercrime in relation to this case? Witness. [00:16:15] Speaker 3: As far as I remember, sir, this is the final Affidavit of Investigation, sir. [00:16:20] Speaker 1: Final Affidavit. Are you sure, Agent? Let me remind you that you are under oath. [00:16:25] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:16:26] Speaker 1: I have with me a certification, a DOJ certification, executed by J.V. Lawrence B. [00:16:36] Speaker ?: Bandung. [00:16:37] Speaker 1: Senior Assistant State Prosecutor J.V. Bandung. For the record, Your Honor, this is Exhibit D-4-29 for the defense. Do you see this, sir? Yes, sir. This certification dated February 5, 2025 states, and I quote, "The referral, the complaint referral, does not contain all the necessary evidence to prove the essential elements of the crime. law enforcement. And therefore, it is recommended that the same be first referred for case buildup." Do you see that? Yes, sir. Now, below that, in the second page, below that, under the word notes, number one, therefore, states, and I quote, that there is no… May I have this flashed on the screen, please? For the ease of the court, so the honorable court can follow. Under notes again, sir. For the record, Your Honor, we are flashing the certification on the screen. Under notes, sir, number one, therefore, states, and I quote, "There is no affidavit of the persons who recorded the video, entitled VP November 23 Press Con at Batasan, through open broadcast software OBS, and in turn, stored it in a digital video disc." Do you see that, sir? Yes, sir. Let's go to page two. On paragraph seven, it states, and I quote, "One of the elements of the crime of grave threats is that the offender threatens another with infliction upon the latter's person, honor, or property, or upon that of the latter's family, of any wrong amounting to any crime. In the instant complaint, only the NBI executed an affidavit, and there was no participation on the part of the offended parties, as it appears. NBI is not the offended party for the crime of grave threats." Do you see that? Yes, sir. Above this, in paragraph six, it states that, and I quote, "Only the minutes of the meeting with several personalities and representatives from various media outfits were submitted, and although the minutes were signed, there was no individual affidavit executed regarding the contents of said minutes." Do you see that, sir? Yes, sir. On paragraph five, it states that, and I quote, "The affidavit of one Patria Morales mentioned that she stored these footages in a USB and submitted it to the NBI. However, there was no USB attached to the complaint. Only a DVD was attached. There was no detail regarding the contents of this DVD." Do you see that, sir? Yes, sir. On paragraph four, it states, and I quote, "Annex L did not indicate who made such TSN. There was also no affidavit of the person who made the TSN." Do you see that? Yes, sir. On paragraph three, it states that, and I quote, "Annexes I and K." "Open parenthesis DVDs with markings NBI-CNN-C-2412-436-2, and NBI-CCN-C-24-436-2, close parenthesis, were not accompanied by an affidavit of the record and TSN, also affidavit of the one who will execute the TSN." Yes, sir. On paragraph two, it states, and I quote, "The press briefing conducted on October 18 was not recorded, and/or stored in the DVD, no video submitted, and there was no TSN of the said briefing, and the necessary affidavit of the person taking the CSN." So, now, is your memory refreshed, sir? Did the DOJ send back the original affidavit of investigation to the NBI? Yes, sir. [00:21:18] Speaker 3: As far as memory. Thank you. [00:21:20] Speaker 1: Now, you are aware that on February 11, 2025, the NBI, through its then director, retired Judge Jaime B. Sanchago, wrote to the Office of the Prosecutor General submitting a revised affidavit of investigation. Yes, sir. This is your affidavit of investigation dated February 10, right? February 10, 2025. Yes, sir. [00:21:56] Speaker 4: So, wait, wait, wait, wait. So, objection, your honor. The defense said that this is your affidavit, February date and February 10, without showing any document to the witness. I'm asking, sir. How could the witness answer to a question that is not accompanied with the document? That should be the basis for the question and the answer, your honor. [00:22:26] Speaker 1: And this is your affidavit. I will reform, your honor. Kindly reform, counsel. Thank you, your honor. This is your affidavit, dated February 10, 2024, correct? Please check. [00:22:53] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:22:57] Speaker 1: Sorry, sir. [00:22:58] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Your honor, can I make a manifestation, your honor, please? Your honor, can we object again to this manifestation? Manifestation. I will not even object. I'm being generous. Your honor. Counsel, let's wait for the witness to review it. It's a voluminous document. I know. The signature is on the last page. You can make the corresponding objection to the style, manner, cross-examination. of the counsel for responding to proper timing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:23:41] Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Your honor, can I make a manifestation, your honor, please? Your honor, can we object again to this manifestation? Manifestation. I will not even object. I'm being generous. Your honor. [00:23:51] Speaker 2: Counsel, let's wait for the witness to review it. It's a voluminous document. I know. The signature is on the last page. You can make the corresponding objection to the style, manner, cross-examination of the counsel for responding to proper timing. [00:24:23] Speaker 1: Is this the amended affidavit of investigation? [00:24:28] Speaker 3: This is put a copy of the affidavit, sir. Yes, sir. [00:24:32] Speaker 1: Affidavit, sir. This is the amended one. [00:24:34] Speaker ?: Yes, sir. [00:24:35] Speaker 3: The photo copy, sir. Thank you. [00:24:37] Speaker 2: With the permission of counsel, Mr. Calilong, what was the date of the first affidavit you submitted that was returned by the DOJ to the NBI? [00:24:49] Speaker 3: As far as I remember, January 30. When the certification was issued, we complied with the requirements and submitted it on February February 10. That's why there's a rendition. [00:25:02] Speaker 2: Have you identified that affidavit of investigation dated January 30? In yesterday's proceedings? No. Yes or no? [00:25:10] Speaker 3: Sir? [00:25:11] Speaker 2: Have you identified the January 30? [00:25:15] Speaker 3: The one that I identified, your honor, is the authentication, your honor. [00:25:19] Speaker 2: Not the affidavit of investigation. So you have not done so? [00:25:22] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:25:23] Speaker 2: This one, you have not done so too? Yes, your honor. For the record, counsel, you may proceed. [00:25:30] Speaker ?: I'm showing you now a letter dated January 30 from the former NBI director Jaime Sanchago. Now, I have to object, your honor, please. You know, the defense has been confronting this witness with documents. Even without marking and identifying the source of these documents. Your honor, that's -- It's like plucking out of thin air a document, presenting them the document to the witness, and withdrawing the document. [00:25:48] Speaker 1: Your honor, that's up to the -- Without even introducing this piece of evidence, this piece of exhibits, into the evidence and the evidence. [00:25:56] Speaker 4: It's like plucking out of thin air a document, presenting them the document to the witness, and withdrawing the document. Your honor, that's up to the -- Without even introducing this piece of evidence, this piece of exhibits, into evidence. So my question is, through the presiding officer, is the defense not entering these documents into evidence, your honor, please? [00:26:32] Speaker 2: They can do so at the proper time, counsel, but in so far as the witness is concerned, I think the basis was laid when he said that he executed only one affidavit of investigation in connection with this case. Now it seems that there are two affidavits. I would like to make a -- Both of which have not yet been presented. One will be presented, I think, by Attorney Lotok. Your honor, for the record -- The first one, we're not aware of it. Is that correct, counsel for the respondent? [00:27:00] Speaker 1: Your honor, he just identified a copy of the affidavit of investigation. Dated June, January 30th. February -- April 10, 2025. [00:27:10] Speaker 4: February -- February 10. Sorry, February 10. February 10. Your honor, please. [00:27:15] Speaker 2: What about the first affidavit? The witness said you had the first affidavit. Yes, your honor. Not yet. Not yet? Yes. You only cited a January 30th letter. Yes, your honor. Of the former NBI -- [00:27:26] Speaker 1: I cited, your honor, a certification by the DOJ, returning an affidavit. [00:27:35] Speaker 4: And that is now the problem, your honor. In fact, even I am confused because the documents are not introduced into evidence by the defense. [00:27:44] Speaker 2: Counsel, please proceed and kindly help the court to be clarified regarding this matter. Thank you. [00:27:50] Speaker 1: You mentioned that you were aware that the then-director retired, Judge B. Sanciago, wrote to the Office of the Prosecutor General submitting an affidavit of investigation on February 11, 2025. I am showing you now that letter dated February 11, 2025. For the record, this is Exhibit D-4-43. Of -- For the defense. [00:28:40] Speaker 4: For the defense. You mean pre-marked, I suppose. Pre-marked. Because when you say marked as evidence for the defense, it's not yet. Your turn has -- I mean, you have yet to present your Exhibit. So it should be pre-marked, your honor, please. [00:28:59] Speaker 2: No, it's pre-marked. And I believe both the defense and the -- rather, the respondent and the prosecution also have common pieces of evidence which you decided during pre-trial. This is not one of them. Which you decided during pre-trial to be marked separately. [00:29:11] Speaker 4: It's not one of those few common piece of evidence. Yes, there are a few. Sir. [00:29:16] Speaker 2: Please proceed, counsel, for the respondent. Witness then, sir. [00:29:19] Speaker 1: There is a signature above the name Judge Jaime B. Santiago. Whose signature is that? [00:29:25] Speaker 4: Your Honor, now, I would like to object to the relevance. A letter is being -- the witness being confronted with a letter coming from the former NBI director, Judge Jaime B. Santiago. And this witness is now being asked to identify whose signature is that. That's obvious. [00:29:44] Speaker 2: I'll allow it conditionally if you can show the relevance in so far as your ability to test the credibility and the accuracy of the witness is concerned. In the meantime, I'll allow it kindly to show the connection, counsel. Thank you. [00:29:57] Speaker 1: Sir, whose signature is this? [00:30:08] Speaker 3: As far as to remember, signature of directors and chalice, sir. Thank you. [00:30:18] Speaker 1: On the last line of the letter, on the fourth page, sir, please take a look. Last line. It says, and I quote, "To support our recommendations attached herein is the revised affidavit of investigation, including its attachments." Did you see that, Agent? [00:30:46] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:30:47] Speaker 1: Thank you. And you confirmed that the November -- the former NBI director, Jaime Santiago, wrote to the Prosecutor General, Richard Anthony Di Fadulion, a letter dated February -- January 30, 2025. This is one of the documents that you submitted to the Committee on Justice, correct? Where's -- Okay, I will show you now. May I have this flashed on the screen? Do you recall this document? [00:31:54] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:31:55] Speaker 1: Yes. January 30, 2025, is a date earlier than February 10, 2025, correct? Yes. [00:32:08] Speaker 4: Your Honor. [00:32:09] Speaker 1: Ask an answer, Your Honor. [00:32:10] Speaker 4: Ask an answer, Your Honor. Your Honor, the witness being asked which -- Your Honor, ask an answer. -- came first. I mean, relevance, Your Honor. Relevance. [00:32:21] Speaker 2: Counsel, if the witness knows and the counsel for respondent will be given the latitude to test the credibility, accuracy, and completeness of the testimony of the witness. But we note, your continuing objection, because you already sound frustrated, counsel, in regard to this line of questioning -- I'm very patient, Your Honor. [00:32:40] Speaker 4: I'm very patient, Your Honor. I'm very patient. [00:32:42] Speaker 2: The counsel for respondent may proceed. Witness may answer. Thank you. [00:32:47] Speaker 1: He already answered, Your Honor. Thank you. You earlier confirmed that there was actually a certification, dated February 5, 2025. You likewise -- [00:32:59] Speaker 4: Objection on misleading. I don't remember this witness -- I have no question, Your Honor. I don't remember this witness -- [00:33:03] Speaker 2: Let the counsel finish with this question, counsel. [00:33:08] Speaker 1: He even read it, Your Honor. You likewise confirmed that in that said certification, dated February 5, 2025, the earlier affidavit of investigation were subject to seven recommendations. And you confirmed that you read that. [00:33:25] Speaker 4: Objection. Misleading, Your Honor, please. Now the counsel mentioned seven grounds. Seven grounds. And I don't remember this witness uttering the term seven grounds. What I do remember, Your Honor, please, is that this witness was confronted with a certification, a letter, whatever. But now this -- the counsel is now asking this witness to confirm the contents, the contents of those certifications or letters. Misleading. That's not allowed during cross. The counsel is now assuming facts that have yet to be established. Can I repeat that? This witness was only confronted with certifications, letters, dated this, dated that. And now the counsel now asking -- Your Honor, please. He's now testifying. Do you confirm rights? Wait, wait. Let me finish. Now he is asking this witness to confirm that in that letter there are seven grounds, as if this witness uttered those words. The ground is misleading definition. This counsel is assuming facts that have yet to be established through this witness. Your Honor, please. Your Honor. [00:34:30] Speaker 2: Counsel, again, the witness is not a newbie. I think he can handle himself and would know how to answer if indeed he is familiar or not with what is being presented to him. And thus far, he has responded based on his knowledge of these documents. The chair will allow it. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:34:48] Speaker ?: Witness me answer. Sir? [00:34:50] Speaker 1: Can you repeat the question, counsel? You confirmed that there was a certification dated February 5, 2025. You likewise confirmed that in said certification -- [00:35:01] Speaker 4: Your Honor, Your Honor, compound question. Compound question. There's no question. [00:35:05] Speaker 1: Wait, wait. [00:35:06] Speaker 2: Kindly wait for the presiding officer to recognize you before answering. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. Yes. Please, counsel for the prosecutors, please finish your objection. [00:35:15] Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Can I? [00:35:17] Speaker 2: Your Honor. [00:35:18] Speaker 4: Yes, please proceed, counsel. Compound questions. The witness is now being confronted with two successive questions without allowing this witness to answer the first question. What makes a compound question -- No need to lecture counsel. [00:35:32] Speaker 2: Counsel for Respondent, please reform. Your Honor, I had no question. He already -- I had no question yet. Kindly, kindly proceed with your question. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:35:43] Speaker 1: The earlier affidavit of investigation was subject to seven recommendations from the DOJ -- Vague, Your Honor, please, objection vague. [00:35:51] Speaker 4: The earlier investigation -- which investigation is the counsel referring to? We already -- Objection vague. [00:35:57] Speaker 1: We already established, Your Honor, there was an earlier one. [00:36:00] Speaker 2: Overruled. Overruled. Overruled. Again, the witness is competent enough to testify. Overruled. Witness. Kindly proceed with your question, counsel. Yes. [00:36:08] Speaker 1: In the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, that you identified, despite DOJ's recommendation number six that you earlier read -- Objection, Your Honor. Objection. Your Honor, I'm not yet finished. If the ground is -- [00:36:27] Speaker 2: Can we wait for the counsel to finish with this question, counsel, please? [00:36:30] Speaker 1: Okay, Your Honor. The question -- Sir, there were still no affidavits of the journalists from the media outlets in your affidavit of investigation dated February 10. [00:36:46] Speaker 4: Witness, not answer first. Objection or misleading. Why is it misleading, counsel? The counsel said the earlier affidavit of investigation. In fact, Your Honor, please, he referred to the February 10 investigation. That's not the earlier investigation. That is the final affidavit of investigation submitted to the DOJ. Misleading. Misleading, Your Honor. Your Honor. [00:37:10] Speaker 2: The presiding officer will ask the question, Mr. Witness, did you attach the affidavits of the two witnesses that viewed the video of the vice president in the February 10 affidavit? [00:37:24] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. Let me qualify my answer in number six, sir. You may do so. In number six, sir, the DOJ requested an affidavit to be executed regarding the contents of the minutes. I executed an affidavit attesting to those minutes, sir, which I'm part of the interview, sir. [00:37:44] Speaker 2: But was it attached to the February 10 affidavit? [00:37:47] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:37:48] Speaker 2: Counsel for the respondent, Your Witness. Thank you. [00:37:51] Speaker 1: Sir, but there are no affidavits of the journalists from the media outlets, correct? My question is not found there, Your Honor. Oh, Your Honor, please. My question is not found there. Your Honor, okay, wait, wait, wait. [00:38:08] Speaker 4: The council is confronting the witness with a document, and he asked, he propounded questions, and then he asked another question, and he took the document away. What's the purpose of that? Objection, Your Honor, please. My question is plain, Your Honor. Let the witness peruse the document you presented him with. Let him answer that through a document. My question is plain, Your Honor. Your Honor, a witness should be allowed to peruse the document that he was confronted with. I am not. Councils, please. Please. [00:38:38] Speaker 2: Witness, I think the witness understood the question. Mr. Kalilong, you may answer if you understand the question. I will repeat the question, Your Honor. [00:38:47] Speaker 1: Can you repeat, Council? Thank you, Your Honor. There were -- there is still no affidavits of the journalists from media outlets appended on your revised affidavit of investigation, sir. May I qualify my answer, sir? [00:38:59] Speaker 3: No, sir. Oh. Just answer yes or no. [00:39:02] Speaker 2: Kindly look at the document presented to you. Unredirect, Council can make you explain the disparity, if any. The question is simple. Are the affidavits attached to the affidavit of investigation? [00:39:22] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:39:52] Speaker 3: May you see the question number six? [00:40:03] Speaker 1: Your Honor, my question does not relate to question number six. [00:40:07] Speaker 2: Kindly show the witness counsel. It will enable him to give an intelligent answer to your question. [00:40:13] Speaker 1: Can you please slash certification and put it to paragraph number six? [00:40:22] Speaker 3: The paragraph number six states that only the minutes of meeting with several personalities and representative from various media outfits were submitted. Although the minutes were signed, there were no individual affidavit executed regarding to the content of the minutes. [00:40:38] Speaker 2: Okay, sir. I have no question. So the answer is the affidavits are not attached. [00:40:41] Speaker 3: I have executed an affidavit, sir. [00:40:43] Speaker 2: No, the affidavits of the two journalists are not attached. I think that's the only question of counsel for the respondent. [00:40:48] Speaker 1: Thank you, Yon. Instead, sir, as you confirmed, what you appended on the two-day affidavit of investigation are affidavits of NBI agents, correct? [00:41:06] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:41:07] Speaker 1: Not the journalists who were present during the November 23, 24 press conference. [00:41:13] Speaker 3: The one who interviewed, sir. [00:41:15] Speaker 1: Yeah, the one who interviewed. Not the journalists. Yes, sir. [00:41:19] Speaker 3: Ash can answer, Yon. [00:41:24] Speaker 1: Sir, in the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, that you identified, despite DOJ's recommendation number seven, can we show again DOJ recommendation number seven? In the certification dated February 5, 2025, it is still the NBI, Cybercrime Division, that is the complainant. [00:41:57] Speaker 3: I believe this is answered on the letter of the director, sir. [00:42:01] Speaker 1: Sir, my answer is answerable, but yes and no. The complainant is still the NBI, Cybercrime Division. Yes, sir. Thank you. The supposed offended parties in this case would be President Bongbong Marcos? [00:42:16] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:42:17] Speaker 1: The First Lady, Lisa Marcos? [00:42:19] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:42:20] Speaker 1: The former Speaker of the House, Martin Romualdez? [00:42:23] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:42:24] Speaker 1: Did President Marcos appear before the NBI during its investigation? No, sir. Did the First Lady, Lisa Marcos, appear before the NBI during its investigation? No, sir. Did the former Speaker, Martin Romualdez, appear before the NBI during its investigation? [00:42:43] Speaker 3: No, sir. [00:42:44] Speaker 1: Sir? I'm showing you again, for the record, the affidavit investigation. Sir, did you attach to that affidavit of investigation, dated February 10, 2025, an affidavit of the President Marcos? Only the responses, sir. Sir, listen to my question. That's the answer. Your Honor, he did not answer, so I am entitled to ask. That's the answer, sir. Not responsive. [00:43:10] Speaker 2: The question was, Mr. Witness, did you attach the affidavit of President Marcos to the February 10 affidavit? [00:43:18] Speaker 3: No, sir. [00:43:19] Speaker 1: Did you attach an affidavit of the First Lady, Lisa Marcos, on your affidavit? No, sir. Did you attach an affidavit of former Speaker, Martin Romualdez, on your affidavit of investigation? No, sir. To your knowledge, if you know, sir, did President Marcos file any criminal complaint against Vice President Sarah Duterte, as a result of the November 23, 2024, online press conference? He made an statement, sir. No, sir. My question is, if you know, did the President file any criminal complaint against the Vice President? I have no personal knowledge, sir. Did the First Lady, Lisa Araneta Marcos, file any criminal complaint against VP Sarah? I have no personal knowledge. How about the Speaker, Martin Romualdez? Did he file any criminal complaint against VP Sarah as a result of the November 23, 2024, online press conference? [00:44:16] Speaker 3: I have no personal knowledge. [00:44:19] Speaker 1: Did you really investigate this case? Oh, you have to argument that this is not a place. Did you really investigate this? How about the Speaker, Martin Romualdez? In other words, sir, the alleged offended parties were not included as complainants. In the case you filed with the Department of Justice. Yes, sir. Thank you. Please. Thank you. And despite the fact that the NBA Cybercrime Division did not comply with recommendations number six and number seven, in the certification date, February 5, 2026, it nevertheless filed the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, that you identified today. [00:45:01] Speaker 3: Can I qualify my answer, sir? [00:45:03] Speaker 1: No, sir. Just answer with yes or no. [00:45:06] Speaker 2: Witness may be allowed to answer according to how he wishes to explain. You may proceed, Mr. Witness, to answer. [00:45:14] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. Thank you, Your Honor. For this case, we complied with the requirements of the DOJ. That's why we secured a second certification wherein our documents is enough for preliminary investigation, sir. [00:45:29] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:45:29] Speaker 1: Thank you. And this certification is a certification dated February 5, 2025, correct? [00:45:42] Speaker 3: This is not the new certification, sir. [00:45:48] Speaker 1: Oh, sorry, sir. Apologies, Your Honor. February 11. Yes, sir. This was also executed by Senior Assistant State Prosecutor J.V. Lawrence B. Bandong, correct? [00:46:07] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. [00:46:08] Speaker 1: Now, let's discuss the nature of the investigation you conducted. You claimed in your affidavit, sir, that affidavit of investigation, that the NBI began its investigation into the VP's remarks because it was directed by the DOJ to do so. [00:46:36] Speaker 3: Motoproprio indirect, sir. [00:46:38] Speaker 1: There, okay. Do you understand what you just said, sir? [00:46:43] Speaker 4: Oh. Yes, sir. Oh. Can I object to that, Your Honor, please? I'm asking, sir. It makes sense, sir. [00:46:48] Speaker 2: Argumentative, counsel. Move on. Motoproprio, sir, means? [00:46:54] Speaker 4: Oh, no. Objection. You're not lecture, counsel. This is cross-examination. You mentioned mutu proprio. What does it mean? [00:47:01] Speaker 3: Even without a complainant, we started the investigation, sir. [00:47:05] Speaker 4: Are you sure, sir? Oh, argumentative. Are you sure, sir? Move on, counsel. Are you sure, sir? How? [00:47:14] Speaker 1: Hold your horses. How about direct investigation? What does that mean? Your Honor. Directed investigation, what does that mean? [00:47:28] Speaker 3: There is a instruction from above, sir. [00:47:30] Speaker 1: From? [00:47:31] Speaker 3: Above. From upper. [00:47:33] Speaker 1: What does above mean? [00:47:35] Speaker 3: It may be the DOJ or the higher. [00:47:38] Speaker 1: Higher. What's higher than the DOJ? [00:47:43] Speaker 3: Based on that, it's only the DOJ, sir. Based on that. [00:47:46] Speaker 1: You said above the DOJ, sir? No, sir. Above the NDA, sir. You said above. May I ask for a reading? Argumentative? You are argumentative. [00:47:53] Speaker 2: Counsel, again, I would have to sustain the objection. It is argumentative. I heard the answer. He meant as a general term above, but referring apparently to only the DOJ in this particular instance. We submit, Your Honor. [00:48:08] Speaker 1: Please proceed. You confirmed that the NBI cybercrime division is the complainant in the case against the vice president and that the DOJ filed this with the DOJ. [00:48:20] Speaker 4: Objection. Compound, Your Honor. That's a compound question. No question, Your Honor. [00:48:23] Speaker 2: That was just a statement. Counsel, kind of way. Oh, exactly. Your Honor, a statement. He's laying the basis for a question. Go to your question, counsel. [00:48:29] Speaker 1: Sir, the NBI, of course you're from the NBI, is under the Department of Justice. [00:48:35] Speaker 4: Yes, sir. Your Honor, we can take judicial notice of that. Your Honor. [00:48:39] Speaker 1: I'm on cross, Your Honor. [00:48:41] Speaker 4: I know, but there are things that may not be discussed. Your Honor, please. [00:48:44] Speaker 2: Can I, Your Honor, please? Counsel, let's give him some latitude. Although we can't take judicial notice of that, it's part of his cross-examination. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. [00:48:55] Speaker 1: The Secretary of Justice is meanwhile the head of the DOJ, correct? [00:49:00] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:49:01] Speaker 1: The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over the NBI. Yes, but even without... No, no more questions. The witness is answering. [00:49:11] Speaker 2: Yes or no, Mr. Witness, if you know. [00:49:15] Speaker 1: Can you repeat, sir? Mr. Witness? The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over the NBI. Yes or no? [00:49:23] Speaker 3: We are under, sir. But we're independent. [00:49:27] Speaker 1: So you do not know. Oh, Your Honor, that's argumentative. [00:49:30] Speaker 4: So you do not know? [00:49:32] Speaker 1: All right, Your Honor. Are you aware of Book 4, Chapter 8, Supervision and Control of the Admin Code? Your Honor. Section 39. Your Honor, I have no question yet. Yeah, Your Honor. Please. [00:49:45] Speaker 2: Section 39. Counsel for the Prosecutor, let the Counsel for Respondent finish his question. Yes, Your Honor. [00:49:49] Speaker 1: Section 39 thereof. Secretary's authority. The Secretary shall have the supervision and control over the bureaus, offices, and agencies under him. Supervision and control. Sir, my question is this. Is the NBI, the National Bureau of Investigation, a bureau under the Department of Justice? Yes, sir. Thank you. And, sir, the President has control over all executive departments, correct? I believe so, sir. The DOJ is one of those executive departments, correct? Yes, sir. And the current president is Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., correct? We agree to that. That's judicial notice. Your Honor, please. Yes or no? There's no other president. We only have one president. He answered already, Your Honor. Already asked and answered. The head of the executive branch is President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., correct? Yes, sir. The very same Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., who you said was an offended party in the case against Vice President Duterte. Yes, sir. So, in other words, the NBI investigated and filed the complaint. The DOJ directed the investigation and will determine whether the case should proceed to court and the alleged offended party. President Marcos is the constitutional head of the executive branch exercising control over both the DOJ and the NBI. [00:51:23] Speaker 4: I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr., I would draw. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. It's even more compound question asking several subject matters. [00:51:31] Speaker 1: Withdraw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. I would draw, Jr. Sir, you testified earlier that you investigated the Vice President in relation to the press briefing that she conducted on November 23, 2024. Yes, sir. This investigation by the NBI Cyber Crime Division was started after the conduct of the November 23, 2024 press briefing of the Vice President, correct? Yes, sir. So, basically, to put it simply, the investigation was done after the supposed incident on November 23, 2024. The same day, sir? The same day, but after. [00:52:07] Speaker 4: Oh, your honor, the same day, then after? Same, not responsive, your honor. [00:52:12] Speaker 1: How could we say the same day after? [00:52:12] Speaker 2: I'll clarify your question. [00:52:14] Speaker 1: Same day, same day. The investigation was done after, later then, the supposed incident on November 23, 2024. Yes, sir. Thank you. [00:52:22] Speaker 2: You mean to say later that day? Yes, your honor. Because how can you investigate something that hasn't happened yet, correct? Yes, your honor. Please proceed. [00:52:31] Speaker 1: Sir, you're not one of the participants of the press conference on November 23, 2025, correct? [00:52:37] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:52:38] Speaker 1: So, you do not have personal knowledge about what transpired during that press briefing, correct? It was live stream, sir. You did not watch that live stream, correct? In real time. Yes, sir. You only acquired knowledge about it when you started investigating later that day? [00:52:58] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:53:01] Speaker 1: You also do not have personal knowledge of the alleged threats made by the vice president during that press conference. Press briefing, sorry. [00:53:09] Speaker 3: After the press briefing, sir. [00:53:10] Speaker 1: You only acquired knowledge about it when you started investigating? [00:53:16] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [00:53:18] Speaker 1: You also do not have personal knowledge of the alleged assassin that was allegedly hired by the vice president? [00:53:26] Speaker 3: It came to my knowledge upon... [00:53:28] Speaker 1: Personal knowledge, sir. [00:53:31] Speaker 3: No, sir. [00:53:34] Speaker 1: Now, during your testimony yesterday, you mentioned that during your investigation on the November 23, 2024 press briefing conducted by the vice president, you preserved a copy of said press briefing through open source investigation, correct? [00:53:51] Speaker 3: Preserve a copy through open source software, sir. [00:53:54] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you for the correction. One of the videos that you were able to preserve in relation to your investigation is the screen recording of the November 23, 2024 press briefing conducted by the vice president, right? Yes, sir. Your Honor, may I move that the very same USB be unsealed and shown the, by the prosecutor's exhibit P-4-10 be unsealed and shown the witness? [00:54:30] Speaker 2: Counsel for the prosecutor is so instructed. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:54:39] Speaker ?: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:55:09] Speaker 1: This is exhibit P-4-10, I believe. Your Honor, may I request that he unseal the USB and that it be allowed to be played? [00:55:38] Speaker 2: Which part, Counsel? [00:55:40] Speaker 1: Your Honor, we will play various parts of the, not the whole, for the, as the... [00:55:47] Speaker 2: That's what I was worried about. Yes, Your Honor. [00:55:49] Speaker 1: We understood by the faces of the honorable members of the court. [00:55:53] Speaker 2: So you will play parts? [00:55:57] Speaker 1: Yes, Your Honor. [00:55:58] Speaker 2: Of it. And you identified, I presume, the time stamp? Yes, we have, Your Honor. I will get to that. Witness may open the seal. Thank you, Your Honor. And Counsel for the prosecutors is instructed to accompany counsel, one of the counsels for the respondent, in the tech booth to make sure that it's the same USB being presented. [00:56:18] Speaker 1: For the record, Your Honor, the witness is opening the prosecutions exhibit P-4-10, Your Honor. This is the video dated November 23, 2024. [00:56:36] Speaker 3: May I open seal the flash drive, sir? [00:56:38] Speaker 2: Thank you. Counsel this with understanding, okay, very much like yesterday, that this USB will again be sealed and signed by both parties. Yes, Your Honor. [00:56:48] Speaker 1: Your Honor, me request that this be played. [00:56:53] Speaker 2: Here, brother. Sorry. Counsel for the prosecutors, kindly accompany a representative from the counsel of the respondent to the tech booth to make sure the same USB to be played. Kindly just guide us through, Counsel, Attorney Nervas, as regards to time stamps. Thank you, Your Honor. I will. Please don't forget your promise that it's not going to be the hold to ours. Yes, Your Honor. [00:57:23] Speaker 5: I'm waiting. [00:57:25] Speaker 2: Senator Judge Pia Cayetano, what is your pleasure, ma'am? Yes. [00:57:28] Speaker 5: If it's possible, Mr. President, if our secretariat can install a monitor here because it really doesn't look nice that I'm slouched there looking this way. And then this one here is a little bit, not for videos, but for the copies of affidavit, it's quite difficult. So if they can put one here, the others want another, but I can speak for those in the front row we would like to request. Thank you. [00:57:59] Speaker 2: The clerk of court, rather, is instructed to kindly install a TV monitor in front of the tables of the counsel for the parties instead of at the witness stand. Both sides. Underneath the table of the counsel for the parties, Senator Judge Pia. [00:58:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [00:58:20] Speaker 2: Thank you. Council, for the record and for reference, kindly identify the timestamp that you will be playing. I presume in chronological order. [00:58:59] Speaker 1: Your Honor, for the record, we are showing the witness a part of the video marked as the Prosecutor's Exhibit P-4-10. First video, the timestamp around 0001.27 to 0002.20 of the November 23, 2023 press briefing as contained in the video that you identified yesterday, sir. Thank you. Your Honor, may we ask that the video be played at those specific timestamps. They did an apology. [00:59:34] Speaker 6: I just have to do an MR. I did an MR. I did an MR, but they did not rule on it. And then suddenly, they have an order transferring me. When the order of the order of contempt was an MR to lift that order of contempt because they said that was the procedure. If they were not able to rule on that, how were they able to come up with an order, you know, to transfer me to the women's correctional in the dead of the night? I mean, why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:21] Speaker ?: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:24] Speaker 6: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:27] Speaker 1: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:30] Speaker ?: Why can't they go like that? [01:00:31] Speaker 1: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:36] Speaker ?: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:38] Speaker 3: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:40] Speaker 1: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:00:55] Speaker 3: Why can't they go like that? [01:00:56] Speaker 1: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:06] Speaker ?: Why can't they go like that? [01:01:07] Speaker 3: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:10] Speaker 2: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:15] Speaker 3: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:25] Speaker 1: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:30] Speaker 3: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:34] Speaker 1: Why can't they go like that? [01:01:35] Speaker 3: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:38] Speaker 1: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:42] Speaker 3: Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? Why can't they go like that? [01:01:46] Speaker 2: Why can't they go like that? If you know, given that you investigated the incident, as you said. [01:02:00] Speaker 3: As far as I remember, there is a hearing in the House of Representatives. [01:02:07] Speaker 1: What committee, sir? [01:02:11] Speaker 3: I can't remember the committee, sir. [01:02:13] Speaker 1: What happened, sir? [01:02:21] Speaker 3: COS was cited in contempt, sir. [01:02:24] Speaker 1: Who, sir? [01:02:25] Speaker 3: I can't remember the exact answer. [01:02:27] Speaker 1: But you investigated. I would draw, Your Honor. Can we play -- let me show you time stamps around 002832 to 002933. This is the same prosecutions exhibit, P-4-10. That is the video you identified yesterday. Your Honor, may we request that that video be played? [01:02:52] Speaker ?: Sorry. Sorry, sorry. Go ahead. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? [01:02:53] Speaker 6: Sorry. [01:02:54] Speaker ?: Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? [01:02:54] Speaker 6: Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? Okay. Okay. [01:02:58] Speaker ?: So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? Okay. Because I think I can hear it, man. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? Okay. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? [01:03:00] Speaker 7: Tama ba? [01:03:01] Speaker ?: Did they appreciate that detail accurately? [01:03:01] Speaker 7: Okay. [01:03:02] Speaker ?: So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? [01:03:02] Speaker 7: Tama ba? So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? Okay. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? Okay. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? Okay. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Tama ba? [01:03:17] Speaker 6: Did they appreciate that detail accurately? Okay. So after you push back, attorney, they left the room, no? Did they appreciate that detail accurately? What is that? It's sort of, di ba? Office business hour? I mean official business hour? Because hindi naman po ako criminal eh. I am not a criminal. I am already here in their facility. I am assured them already that I will attend their hearing on Monday. So why will they treat me like that? So that's why I said I want my lawyer. I want my lawyer. I want my lawyer. Stop. Please. Sir? facility i have assured them already that i will attend their hearing on monday so why will they treat me like that so that's why i said i want my lawyer i want my lawyer [01:03:52] Speaker 1: please sir did you consider this in making your evaluation in the revised affidavit of investigation dated february 10 20 25. yes sir thank you now let me show you time stamps around zero zero three three zero five to zero zero three four three two of the november 23 2023 press briefing as contained in the video that you identified yesterday the prosecution's exhibit p-4-10 your honor may we request that the video be played [01:04:34] Speaker 6: that there by myself if i did not feel that i was being threatened my life is being threatened and if you know i'm sure you saw in the hearing that my back hurts i cannot lift everything i cannot but dahil natapot ako i feared for my life i really push that but it might now this is a threat to my life [01:05:14] Speaker ?: this is a threat to my life [01:05:15] Speaker 6: they've got up on you in the middle of the day huh how how is that done isn't that a threat to my life the doctor came here [01:05:36] Speaker 1: stop thank you sir did you investigated did you investigate the threats to attorneys like us life [01:05:44] Speaker 3: uh we need a complaint for this one that's why yes or no sir did you investigate they did not because there's not okay thank you [01:05:58] Speaker 4: no question sir if the witness may be allowed to answer your honor i had no question [01:06:03] Speaker 1: already answered did you consider this part in uh mark in making your evaluation in the revised affidavit affidavit of investigation dated february 10 20 25. yes sir okay so despite considering this these parts of the ever said videos the still the nbi still recommended the filing of complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition only against the vice president [01:06:44] Speaker 3: yes may i qualify my answer sir no sir yes or no [01:06:48] Speaker 1: there's a reason why sir your council may ask you questions this is my turn proper subject matter for redirect so despite considering these parts of the videos shown to you the nbi still recommended the filing of complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition against only the vice president yes sir now in the revised affidavit of investigation dated february 10 20 25 in page 15 paragraph 40 thereof it is stated there and i quote we unanimously believe that vice president duterte may be held liable for grave threats they've defined and penalized under article 282 of the revised penal code inciting to ra 10 17 5 or the cyber crime prevention act of 2012. you see that sir right yes sir this conclusion was reached by you together with other affians of the revised affidavit of investigation dated february 10 2025 correct yes sir now sir you're you mentioned that you're not a lawyer right ask and answer to date we are aware are you aware if any court has convicted the vice president for grave threats over what transpired [01:08:25] Speaker 2: on november 23 2024 as far as you know not yet sir not yet as far as you know mr witness as far as you [01:08:35] Speaker 1: know to date are you know no no no sir to date are we thank you your honor to date are you aware if any court has convicted the vice president for a sighting to sedition over what transpired on november 23 [01:08:48] Speaker 3: 20 24. no on my personal knowledge sir thank you but you're the complainant right uh [01:08:56] Speaker 1: uh uh argumentative your honor i was just asking i was just asking that's an answer argumentative then we withdraw your question improper attached to the revised affidavit of investigation which you identified and submitted to the doj and the committee on justice is your affidavit of transcription of the press conference on november 23 2024. i am showing you this now for the record sir your honor i will show the... Can you check? Sir, please take a look. Can you please stay for the record? This is [01:09:52] Speaker 3: your affidavit of transcription? Yes, sir, this is a photocopy of my affidavit of transcription, [01:10:02] Speaker 1: sir. Transcript, this refers to the press conference on November 23, 2024. Yes, sir. You signed this on December 20, 2024? Yes, sir. Sir, please take a look at your... Paragraph 2. Let's read it together. In relation to the ongoing investigation, the undersigned was tasked to transcribe the screen-recorded video of the press conference of Vice President Sara Duterte on 23 November 2024, which was saved on a DVD. You read that, sir? Yes, sir. On paragraph 3 thereof, let's read it together. "Undersigned transcribe the video mentioned above, which resulted in a CCD transcript hereto as attached." Yes, sir. You read that, sir? And 4. "I hereby certify that the above-mentioned digital evidence has been faithfully transcribed, and has not been edited, altered, or changed in any way." Did you read that, sir? Yes, sir. "I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and for whatever legal intent and purpose it may serve." Yes, sir. And 4. "Did you read that, sir?" Yes, sir. These statements of yours, this affidavit of yours, these were all done under oath, correct? Yes, sir. And you were offered as an expert in digital forensic examination with a whopping two weeks of training. Do you confirm that that transcription of the screen-recorded video of the press conference of VP Sara Duterte on the 23 November 2024 has been faithfully transcribed? [01:11:55] Speaker 3: I don't remember that I was introduced as expert by a competent witness. [01:11:59] Speaker 1: Okay, sir. My question is the press conference of VP Sara Duterte that the transcription of the screen-recorded video of the press conference of VP Sara Duterte on 23 November 2024 was faithfully transcribed by you. [01:12:19] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [01:12:29] Speaker 1: Sir, attached to this affidavit is the transcript, correct? Can you please take a look? Yes, sir. And, Your Honor, may I ask again that the video, parts of the video be played of the press conference on November 23, 2024. Let's go through it together, sir. First, let's go to around timestamp 00446. Your Honor, may I request that the video be played? Sir, please. [01:13:17] Speaker 8: After this order, are you going to file, are you, are you going to trigger the filing? [01:13:23] Speaker 6: I am not leaving this room. I am here, here in the House of Representatives detention facility for five days until the hearing on Monday. Nobody comes in here and demand to transfer me in the middle of the night. I have my rights. I am not leaving this room. [01:13:48] Speaker 1: Stop. Okay. You heard that, sir? Do you want to repeat it? I heard it, sir. You heard it. Sir, in the first, uh, you see also where that part is? Can you, can you see it? [01:14:03] Speaker 3: Start with the question with Red Mendoza, sir. [01:14:07] Speaker 1: Okay, after. So, Laika Lopez, did you, did you hear that? [01:14:11] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. [01:14:11] Speaker 1: Okay. [01:14:12] Speaker 2: Mr. Witness, kindly speak to the mic. [01:14:14] Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor. You heard, she said, "I am not leaving this room. I am a detainee here, here in the House of Representatives detention facility for five days until the hearing on Monday." That is the first sentence, sir. My question is this. Does your, does your transcript have the words, a detainee? Can you repeat the video, sir? Okay, let's do it. Please repeat, please play for the, the video again, please. [01:14:51] Speaker 2: Jeff is instructed to kindly, um, play the video timestamp identified by council for respondent. [01:14:58] Speaker 6: I am not leaving this room. I am a detainee here, here in the House of Representatives detention facility for five days. [01:15:13] Speaker 3: That part that the detainee is unaudible, the, the, the only I heard, that's why. [01:15:17] Speaker 1: You heard the, the, correct? Yes. Jeff is, are the words or the sounds, duh, duh, duh, duh, huh, here, here, here, here, yes, here, here, okay. Please play, how about the last part, the last part of the paragraph? She said, "I have my rights. I am not accused of any crime. I am not leaving this room." Does your paragraph in your transcript have the word accused after not? Can you play the video, sir? [01:15:54] Speaker 4: Speak to the microphone, please. Please play the video again. Speak to the microphone. Thank you, sir. [01:15:58] Speaker 2: You're instructed to play the video, but this is instructed to speak to the mic. [01:16:03] Speaker 6: Answer me in the middle of the night. I have my rights. Okay, ma'am. This is so many crying. I am not leaving this room. [01:16:15] Speaker 1: More, play please. [01:16:16] Speaker 8: Okay, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. [01:16:22] Speaker 1: Any other question? [01:16:25] Speaker 8: I'm sorry, ma'am, because I understand, ma'am. Ma'am, this is my last question, and I'm very much sorry. [01:16:36] Speaker 6: I am not leaving this room. I am here in the House of Representatives detention facility for five days until the hearing on Monday. Nobody can just come in here and demand to transfer me in the middle of the night. I have my rights. I am not leaving this room. [01:17:04] Speaker 1: Is the word accused in your transcript? What I heard is root, sir. The root. Of any crime. The root of any crime. Yes, sir. Let's play 001238. Can you please go to 001238? [01:17:22] Speaker 9: I am now registering my objection as to the relevance, your honor, please. [01:17:40] Speaker 4: If I may explain, your honor, of this line of questioning, your honor, please, if I may. [01:17:53] Speaker 2: Counsel may explain its objection. Your honor, please. One second. [01:17:57] Speaker 4: This witness already identifies the video containing the contents of that press conference on November 23, 2024. And the counsel is now confronting this witness, whether there are minuscule portions of the two-hour video, like detainee, accused, whether this appear in the transcription. Now, the question, the basis for the objection is irrelevant. How can it be relevant? How can it be relevant? Assuming, but not conceding, that these two minuscule words, detainee and accused, are not reflected in the transcript, when, in fact, this witness said he investigated not only on the basis of the transcript, but on the basis of the video that he himself viewed. What's the relevance? [01:18:54] Speaker 2: He overruled part of cross to test the accuracy and the truthfulness of the witness insofar as his transcription of the video is concerned. Thank you. Counsel may proceed. Thank you. [01:19:06] Speaker 1: Please play again. 001238. [01:19:17] Speaker 9: You notice if you're in the hearing, diba, sinuspend po nung chairman Tsuwa yung session, [01:19:36] Speaker 6: tapos sinuspend po ko ni congressman Castro in contempt. Then after that, nagrule sila, tapos, then sinuspend po niya, tapos lumapit po sila, nagtagod po sila, and then they called my lawyer, and then turing na tao sapin ko. So, lumapit ako, and I really apologize. I said you know that letter to the Commission on Audit was really a position of the agency. It is our stand. Like all, diba, like, meron kang points na gusto mo i-raise. We respectfully parang raised our points to the Commission on Audit. Alam ko, hindi naman po yung mali, kasi that was our right as an agency. Because there was an ongoing audit investigation, pero hindi naman namin kinukuhat. [01:20:34] Speaker 1: Did you hear the Vice President speaking? [01:20:44] Speaker 7: I don't hear. [01:20:45] Speaker 4: Can you please play again? Mr. Kalilong, you are reminded, please answer through the microphone. [01:20:50] Speaker 1: Can you please play it again? [01:20:55] Speaker 6: So, we filed our MR. They did not rule on it, but sadly, they were able to come out with an order ruling to transfer me to the Women's Correctional. [01:21:13] Speaker 1: There. Did you hear that? [01:21:16] Speaker 3: There are sounds, but I can't distinguish the words. Mr. Kalilong, can you play it again? [01:21:21] Speaker 1: Mr. Kalilong, ask and answer it. What's the point? Okay, withdrawn, your honor. No further questions. [01:21:30] Speaker 2: No further questions. Are we done? Mr. Kalilong, on cross. Council, do you have redirect? Of course, your honor, please. For the utter failure of the... I was hoping you won't, but yes. For the utter failure of the respondent... Council, before I recognize council for the prosecutor, Senator Judge Tulfo Raffi is recognized. Your honor, sorry, may I move to strike that statement of the prosecutor. [01:21:54] Speaker 4: How can it be, your honor? That's my manifestation. I'm about to answer the question of the presiding officer. [01:21:59] Speaker 2: We will review the journal tomorrow. I did not even hear anything of this strikeable council, but we will review the journal tomorrow. [01:22:07] Speaker 1: Your honor, he said for the utter failure of the respondent. [01:22:10] Speaker 4: Yes, your honor, I said for the utter failure of the respondent to debunk the material points I was testified to by the witness yesterday. Your honor, he is testifying, I'm not done either. He is still testifying. I'm about to answer the question. I'm not yet done with the answer. [01:22:23] Speaker 2: Councils, councils, please. The presiding officer has not recognized either of you. Thank you. Thank you. Kindly settle down. Senator Judge Raffi Tulfo is recognized. [01:22:32] Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Sir, you may proceed. Clarification, I'm a point, Mr. Presiding Officer. Mr. Witness, what is your experience with regards to social media analytics? I have training, sir. What kind of training? [01:22:50] Speaker 3: I have cyber crime investigation training, sir. [01:22:53] Speaker 10: Okay. Are you familiar with Facebook or do you have SOC Med accounts that would make you a little bit knowledgeable when it comes to SOC Med? Yes, sir. What is your account? What is your social media account? [01:23:06] Speaker 3: I have an account in Facebook, in Instagram, in X. [01:23:12] Speaker 10: So that means pretty much you're a little bit familiar with Facebook, right? Yes, your honor. Okay. There were concerns, Mr. Witness, whether the videos presented yesterday are AI-generated or authentic.