About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Sara Duterte Impeachement LIVE — Senate Grills Duterte Over Mishandling Of Government Funds — N18G from CNN-News18, published July 10, 2026. The transcript contains 19,107 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"that that man 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 evening that my back hurts i cannot parang lift everything i cannot but dahil natakot ako i feared for my life i really pushed myself because i didn't do..."
[0:00] that that man by myself if i did not feel that i was being threatened my life is being
[0:09] threatened and if you know i'm sure you saw in the evening that my back hurts i cannot
[0:17] parang lift everything i cannot but dahil natakot ako i feared for my life i really
[0:26] pushed myself because i didn't do harassment this is really a threat to my life they've
[0:43] got up on you in the middle of the day huh how's that done isn't that a threat to my
[0:54] life i love the little man sick i have said that i should be because the doctor came here
[1:03] stop thank you sir did you investigate it did you investigate the threats to attorneys
[1:09] like us life uh we need a complaint for this one that's why yes or no sir did you investigate
[1:17] we did not because there's not okay thank you no question sir if the witness may be allowed
[1:26] to answer your honor i had no question already answered did you consider this part in uh mark
[1:37] in making your evaluation in the revised affidavit answered he said yes earlier this is a different
[1:41] part your honor this is a different part this did you consider this part in your evaluation
[1:48] the revised affidavit of investigation dated february 10 2025 yes sir okay so despite considering
[1:56] this these parts of the aforesaid videos the still the nbi still recommended the filing of
[2:02] complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition only against the vice president yes may i qualify
[2:11] my answer sir no sir yes or no there's a reason why sir your council may ask you questions this
[2:19] is my turn proper subject matter for indirect so despite considering these parts of the videos
[2:26] shown to you the nbi still recommended the filing of complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition
[2:33] against only the vice president yes sir now in the revised affidavit of investigation dated february
[2:46] 10 20 25 in page 15 paragraph 40 thereof it is stated there and i quote we unanimously believe
[2:56] that vice president duterte may be held liable for grave threats they've defined and penalized
[3:02] under article 282 of the revised penal code it's inciting to sedition defined and penalized under article
[3:10] 142 of the revised penal code in relation to ra 10 17 5 or the cyber crime prevention act of 2012
[3:19] you see that sir right yes sir this conclusion was reached by you together with other affians of the
[3:29] revised affidavit of investigation dated february 10 2025 correct yes sir now sir you're you mentioned that
[3:38] you're not a lawyer right ask and answered ask and answered to date we are aware are you aware if any
[3:46] court has convicted the vice president for grave threats over what transpired on november 23 2024
[3:53] as far as you know not yet sir not yet mr. witness as far as you know no no sir to date are we thank you
[4:06] your honor today are you aware if any court has convicted the vice president for inciting to sedition over what
[4:13] transpired on november 23 2024 thank you but you're the complainant right argumentative your honor i was
[4:26] just asking sustained answered argumentative did we draw your question improper attached to the revised
[4:32] affidavit of investigation which you identified and submitted to the doj and the committee of justice
[4:38] is your affidavit of transcription of the press conference on november 23 2024 i am showing you
[4:47] this now for the record sir your honor i will show the so please take a look please state for us say
[5:16] it indirect for the record this is your affidavit of transcription transcript this refers to the press
[5:32] conference on november 23 2024 yes sir you signed this on december 20 2024 yes sir please take a look at
[5:47] your paragraph two let's read it together in relation to the ongoing investigation the undersigned was
[5:56] tasked to transcribe the screen recorded video of the press conference of vice president sarah duterte
[6:03] on 23 november 2024 which was saved on a dvd you read that sir yes on paragraph three thereof let's read it
[6:12] together undersigned transcribe the video mentioned above within the resulted which resulted in a ccd
[6:20] transcript here to attach zero that sir and for i hereby certify that the above mentioned digital
[6:28] evidence has been faithfully transcribed and that has not been edited altered or changed in any way did
[6:34] you read that sir yes and i am a number five paragraph five i'm executing this affidavit to attest to the
[6:41] truth of the foregoing facts and circumstances and for whatever legal intent and purpose it may serve
[6:50] did you read that sir yes these statements of yours this affidavit of yours these were all done under oath
[6:58] correct yes and you were offered as an expert in digital forensic examination with a whopping two weeks
[7:06] of training do you confirm that that transcription of the screen recorded video the press conference of
[7:14] vp sarah duterte on the 23 november 2024 has been faithfully transcribed okay sir but my question is
[7:27] oh the press conference of vp sarah duterte that the transcription of the screen recorded video of the
[7:37] press conference of vp sarah duterte on 23 november 2024 was faithfully transcribed by you yes sir
[7:45] sir uh attached to this affidavit is the transcript correct can you please take a look yes sir and your
[8:10] honor may i ask again that the video parts of the video be played of the press conference on november
[8:17] 2023 2024 let's go through it together sir first let's go to around stamp stamp stamp stamp zero zero four
[8:36] four four six your honor may i request that the video be played sir please uh after this order are you are you
[8:45] going to file are you going to are you going to trigger that i am not leaving this room i am here here
[8:54] in the house of representatives detention facility for five days until the hearing on monday
[9:00] you heard that sir you want to repeat it you heard it sir in the first uh you see also where that part is
[9:27] can you can you see it start with the question okay after the so like a lopez did you do did you hear
[9:36] that yes sir okay mr witness kindly speak to the mic yes you heard she said i am not leaving this room
[9:46] i am a detainee here here in the house of representatives detention facility for five days
[9:53] until the hearing on monday until the hearing on monday that is the first sentence sir my question is this
[9:58] does your affidavit does your transcript have the words a detainee can you repeat the video sir
[10:12] okay let's do it please repeat please play for the the video again to kindly um play the video timestamp
[10:22] i am not identified by council for respondent
[10:24] i am not leaving this room i am a detainee here here in the house of representatives detention facility
[10:35] for five days that part that the detainee is unaudible did did the only i heard that you heard the the
[10:45] correct yes is are the words or the sounds the the the the here here here yes here here okay
[10:56] uh please play how about the last part the last part of the paragraph she said i have my rights i am
[11:06] not accused of any crime i am not leaving this room does your paragraph and your transcript have
[11:14] the word accused after not can you please please play the video again speak to the microphone thank you
[11:23] i'm sorry ma'am i understand ma'am ma'am uh this is my last question and i'm very much sorry
[11:58] i am not leaving this room i am here here in the house of representatives detention facility
[12:11] for five days until the hearing on monday nobody can just come in here and demand to transfer me in the
[12:19] middle of the middle of the night i have my right stop leaving this room is the word accused in your
[12:33] transcript what i heard is root sir the root of any crime the root of any crime yes sir let's play
[12:40] 0 0 0 12 38 can you please uh go to 0 0 12 38
[12:56] can you please uh go to 0 0 12 38
[13:04] please uh now uh i am now registering my objection as to the relevance your honor please if i may explain
[13:16] on your of this line of questioning our peace if i may council may explain his objection your honor
[13:22] please please this witness already identifies the video containing the contents of the press conference
[13:34] on November 23, 2024, and the council is now confronting this witness whether there are
[13:43] minuscule portions of the two-hour video like detainee, accused, whether this appear in the
[13:54] transcription. Now the basis for the objection is irrelevant. How can it be relevant? How can
[14:02] it be relevant assuming, but not conceding, that these two minuscule words detainee and accused are
[14:08] not reflected in the transcript when in fact this witness said he investigated not only on the basis
[14:15] of the transcript but on the basis of the video that he himself viewed. What's the relevance?
[14:20] Overruled part of cross to test the accuracy and the truthfulness of the witness in so far as his
[14:26] transcription of the video is concerned. Thank you. Council may proceed. Thank you. Please
[14:32] please play again. 001238.
[14:46] You notice if you're in the hearing, di ba? Sino-spent po ng Chairman Tsua yung session. Tapos,
[15:03] nung sinaitubo ko ni Congressman Castro yung contempt. Then after that, nagrule sila. Tapos,
[15:12] then silustuhan niya. Tapos, lumapit po sila. Nagtahod up sila. And then they called my lawyer. And then
[15:20] turing na to usapin ko. So, lumapit ako. And I really apologize. I said, you know, that letter to the
[15:27] Commission on Audit was really a position of the agency. It is our stand. Like all, di ba? Like,
[15:34] meron kang points na gusto mo i-raise. We respectfully parang raised our points to the
[15:40] Commission on Audit. Alam ko, hindi naman po yung malay. Kasi that was our right as an agency.
[15:46] Because there was an ongoing audit investigation. Pero hindi naman namin kinukuha.
[15:51] Did you hear the Vice President speaking? I don't hear. Can you please play again?
[16:12] Mr. Kalilong, you are reminded. Please answer through the microphone. I don't hear.
[16:16] Can you please play it again? So, we filed our MR. They did not rule on it. But
[16:24] suddenly, they were able to come out with an order ruling to transfer me to the Women's Correctional.
[16:31] There. Did you hear that? There are sounds. But I can't distinguish the words. Can you do,
[16:47] play it again? Your Honor, I should answer it. What's the point? Okay, withdrawn, Your Honor.
[16:52] No further questions. No further questions. Are we done? On Cross Council, do you have redirect?
[17:00] Of course, Your Honor, please, for the utter failure of the… I was hoping you won't, but…
[17:06] For the utter failure of the respondent…
[17:08] Council, before I recognize Council for the Prosecutor, Senator Judge Tulfo Rafi
[17:14] is recognized. Your Honor, sorry, may I move to strike that statement of the
[17:19] Prosecutor? How can it be, Your Honor? That's my manifestation. I'm about to answer the question
[17:24] of the presiding officer. We will review the journal tomorrow. I did not even hear anything.
[17:29] Yes. It's a strikeable Council, but we will review the journal tomorrow.
[17:33] Your Honor, he said for the utter failure of the respondent.
[17:36] Yes, Your Honor, I said for the utter failure of the respondent to debunk the material points
[17:41] testified to by the witness yesterday. I'm not yet done.
[17:43] Your Honor, he is testifying. I'm not done either. He is still testifying.
[17:46] I'm about to answer the question. I'm not yet done with the answer.
[17:49] Councils, please, the presiding officer has not recognized either of you.
[17:53] Thank you. Thank you.
[17:54] Kindly settle down. Senator Judge Rafi Tulfo is recognized.
[17:58] Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[18:02] Clarification. I'm a point, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[18:06] Mr. Witness, what is your experience with regards to social media analytics?
[18:11] I have training, sir.
[18:14] What kind of training?
[18:16] I have cyber crime investigation training, sir.
[18:19] Okay. Are you familiar with Facebook or do you have
[18:23] SocMed accounts that would make you a little bit knowledgeable when it comes to SocMed?
[18:28] Yes, sir.
[18:30] What is your account? What is your social media account?
[18:32] I have an account in Facebook, in Instagram, in X.
[18:40] So that means pretty much you're a little bit familiar with Facebook, right?
[18:44] Yes, Your Honor.
[18:45] Okay.
[18:45] There were concerns, Mr. Witness, whether the videos presented yesterday are AI-generated or authentic.
[18:57] So are you experienced enough analyzing whether a video is AI-generated or authentic?
[19:02] Yes, Your Honor.
[19:04] What makes you say that?
[19:07] Based on my experience, Your Honor, and the video itself, it's two hours long.
[19:12] Normally, an AI-generated video will only last a short second, sir.
[19:15] So the video that was presented yesterday where we saw the VP was saying something or talking to that effect.
[19:29] Did you do something or what kind of system did you observe or follow to ensure whether
[19:37] that video was AI-generated or authentic?
[19:40] Based on personal observation, sir.
[19:42] Personal observation?
[19:43] Yes, Your Honor.
[19:45] Okay.
[19:46] A few more questions.
[19:47] Therefore, will you be able to say that the video presented yesterday were AI-generated or authentic?
[19:59] The video presented today is what it is being seen on the Facebook, sir.
[20:05] Okay.
[20:06] So based on your affidavit, you mentioned that the NBA subpoenaed some members of the media
[20:11] who are participants of the online press con on November 23, 2024, right?
[20:18] Yes, Your Honor.
[20:19] And subsequently, you said that you questioned and investigated
[20:22] these persons regarding the conduct of that press con.
[20:27] So based on what you gathered from your investigation, so I have a few questions, right?
[20:31] Yes, Your Honor.
[20:32] Who set up the press conference?
[20:34] Based on our interview, sir, it is the office of the vice president, sir.
[20:39] So it wasn't sport of the moment press con?
[20:44] I can't confirm, sir, but it's the response of the media personnel that we interviewed.
[20:52] Okay.
[20:52] Who invited the participants?
[20:56] If my memory serves me right, it's JC Kahinihinan, sir.
[21:01] Okay.
[21:01] Who is JC?
[21:03] Staff of the office of the vice president, sir.
[21:06] Okay.
[21:06] Who are the participants and how many participants were there, if you can remember?
[21:14] As far as I remember, it's at least 40.
[21:17] 40.
[21:19] Okay.
[21:19] Were there mainstream media or anybody from the broadsheets at that time?
[21:24] There are, sir.
[21:25] There were?
[21:26] Yes, sir.
[21:27] Do you know how many approximately, give or take?
[21:31] We have the one that we have issued subpoena, sir.
[21:34] At least six, sir.
[21:36] Six.
[21:37] Okay.
[21:38] What was the reach of the video on that very day?
[21:43] Like how many views on that very day?
[21:45] And then a few days later, were you able to observe that?
[21:50] I can't remember, sir.
[21:55] You can't remember.
[21:57] Okay.
[21:58] How did it spread or how did it spread the videos that were presented yesterday as far as you know when you did an investigation?
[22:08] It became trending, sir.
[22:11] It became trending.
[22:12] And my last question is, kasi ina-establish dito ay inciting to sedition on top of yung sinasabing grave threat.
[22:25] Ano yung mga comments na napansin mo doon sa video?
[22:30] Can you give us an example?
[22:32] One of the comments, because on the video, November 23, there were mentioned about people power when asked a question by Princess Maui.
[22:42] And the vice president responded, agreed.
[22:48] And the laban ay wala sa EDSA, nasa Malacanang.
[22:54] And there are responses from the comments, but it's not documented that he's agreeing, sir.
[23:00] No further question, Mr. Representing Officer.
[23:03] Thank you, Senator Judge Tulfo.
[23:06] Senator Judge Aquino thereafter.
[23:08] Senator Judge Pangilinan.
[23:10] Senator Judge Aquino has two minutes.
[23:13] You may proceed, sir.
[23:14] Maraming salamat, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[23:17] Mr. Calilong, kanina may nabanggit na dalawang affidavit, isang January at isang February.
[23:26] Yung January ay binalik sa inyo, tama po ba?
[23:29] Yes, Your Honor.
[23:30] And there were seven grounds why it was returned to you, is that correct?
[23:34] Seven points.
[23:36] May, can you narrate what are the seven points that you addressed, is that the correct term that you addressed in the second affidavit?
[23:44] Yes, Your Honor.
[23:45] Can you name them, please?
[23:46] May I have the certificate, sir?
[23:49] The certification, was it counsel for the respondent?
[23:55] Your Honor, may I approach and show him the document being alluded to by Senator Judge Aquino.
[24:03] Note 1, there is no affidavit of the person who recorded the video entitled BP November 23 Press Con at Batasan through open broadcast super studio and in turn stored in the DVD.
[24:22] Number 2, the press briefing conducted on October 18, 2024 was not recorded and or stored in DVD and there was no TSN of the said briefing and the necessary affidavit of the person taking the TSN.
[24:38] Number 3, Annex INK DVD with markings NBICCN-C-24-12436-2 and NBICCN-C-24-12436-2 were not accompanied by an affidavit of the recorder and the TSN.
[24:59] Number 4, Annex L did not indicate who made the TSN.
[25:07] There was also no affidavit of the person who made the TSN.
[25:11] Number 5, the affidavit of what Patricia Morales mentioned that she stored the footage in a USB and submitted to the NBI.
[25:19] However, there was no USB attached to the complaint. Only DVD was attached. There was no detail regarding the content of this DVD.
[25:27] Number 6, only the minutes of meeting with several personalities and representative from various media outfits were submitted.
[25:35] Although the minutes were signed, there was no individual affidavit executed regarding to the contents of the said minutes.
[25:42] Number 7, one of the elements of crime of grave threat is that the offender threatens another with the infliction upon the latter's person, honor, and property or upon that of the latter's family.
[25:57] or if the wrong amounting into a crime. In the instant complaint, only the NBI executed an affidavit and there was no participation on the part of the offended party as it appears in the NBI is not the offended party of the crime of grave threat.
[26:12] Okay, so nakuha mo yung nagsubmit kayo, yan yung binalik sa inyo, and then you did your best to correct all those items. Is that correct?
[26:22] Yes, Your Honor.
[26:23] Okay, the first six are technical, no?
[26:25] Yes, Your Honor.
[26:26] So nung panghuli is a matter of who is the offended party.
[26:29] Yes, Your Honor.
[26:31] Hindi nyo na correct yan?
[26:33] Or nung binalik ninyo, it was accepted already by the DOJ?
[26:39] There is an explanation, Your Honor, that was included in the letter of the former director, Judge Jaime Santiago, sir.
[26:46] Okay.
[26:47] Where in the filing for preliminary investigation, it is not required for the victim to execute an affidavit, complaint affidavit.
[26:59] Yan yung sagot ng NBI?
[27:00] Yes, Your Honor.
[27:01] And once you submitted, it was accepted by the DOJ?
[27:04] Yes, Your Honor, and we received a certification, Your Honor, that our evidence is enough for preliminary investigation, sir.
[27:11] Okay, yun na yung second response to the second affidavit that you provided?
[27:15] Yes, Your Honor.
[27:16] Okay.
[27:17] May mga nabanggit dun sa mga statements tungkol sa Hitman.
[27:23] Sa totoo lang, yung presensya ng Hitman, mabigat yun.
[27:30] So, let me ask, are you the one who investigated just the video?
[27:34] Or did you also investigate the presence of the Hitman that was being mentioned in the videos of the Vice President?
[27:43] I was only tasked for the video, sir.
[27:46] Okay, may I direct this to the prosecution.
[27:48] Will you be presenting other witnesses that will pertain to this alleged Hitman?
[27:54] As to the alleged Hitman, Your Honor, please.
[27:57] Yes.
[27:59] Yes.
[28:00] So, kayo, Mr. Calilong, hindi kayo yung nage-imbestigan yan.
[28:03] Wala kayong alam tungkol dun sa presensya ng Hitman?
[28:07] Yes, Your Honor.
[28:08] Okay.
[28:09] Mr. President, I will refrain from my questions and wait for the witness pertaining to the Hitman.
[28:13] Maraming salaman.
[28:14] Noted and under the records, Senator Judge Pangilinan thereafter, Senator Judge Antiveros, and then Senator Judge Villanueva.
[28:21] Thank you.
[28:22] Thank you.
[28:23] You have two minutes.
[28:25] Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[28:27] The question is to the witness.
[28:29] Kanina tinanong sa'yo ng defense counsel or counsel for the respondents na ikaw ay, kung ikaw ay abogado.
[28:38] Ang sagot mo hindi.
[28:39] Yes, sir.
[28:40] Ikaw ba ay degree holder?
[28:43] Yes, Your Honor.
[28:44] Ano ang degree?
[28:46] Bachelor of Science in Accountancy, Bachelor of Science in Accounting Technology, and I'm a certified public accountant, sir.
[28:53] So, you're a certified public accountant?
[28:55] Yes, sir.
[28:56] Yes, sir.
[28:57] Yes, sir.
[28:58] Yes, sir.
[28:59] Yes, sir.
[29:00] Okay.
[29:01] Nagkaroon ka ng mga training.
[29:03] Ang nabanggit mo kahapon, dalawang weeks ng training.
[29:05] Yes, sir.
[29:06] Yes, sir.
[29:07] Pero on what matter?
[29:09] Only on photo and video authentication, sir.
[29:11] Okay.
[29:12] Meron pa bang ibang training na ikaw ay you went through bilang expert or competent witness sa usapin ng digital technology, cyber security, online training? Meron ba?
[29:33] Yes, Your Honor.
[29:34] Anong mga ito?
[29:35] I mentioned that I have a training in certified computer hacking forensic investigator.
[29:41] I have a training in computer forensic, mobile forensic, and photo and video authentication training.
[29:47] I have also training in cyber crime investigation.
[29:51] We also undergone a 480 hours training on cyber security and a training before we start the bureau.
[30:00] We have undergone the NBI Academy which teach us all the aspects in investigation, sir.
[30:07] Okay.
[30:09] And siguro last question.
[30:11] Ang training na ito puro local ba o meron ding training sa ibang bansa?
[30:15] I have an international, sir, recently.
[30:19] Ano yan?
[30:20] It's a training in Strasbourg.
[30:24] Okay.
[30:25] The new training is?
[30:28] Saan lugar na lang, Mr. Witkes?
[30:35] Strasbourg, Germany?
[30:36] Strasbourg, France, sir.
[30:38] Oh.
[30:39] It's a five days training, sir.
[30:41] And meron pang ibang international seminars na inattendan mo?
[30:47] International, sir, but it is conducted locally, the Interpol, sir.
[30:51] Interpol?
[30:52] Yes, Your Honor.
[30:53] Okay.
[30:54] I have no further questions.
[30:55] Thank you, Senator Judge Palinan.
[30:56] Senator Judge Antiveros is recognized.
[30:58] You may proceed, ma'am, and you have two minutes.
[31:05] Salamat po, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[31:08] Para sa Council for the Defense, Mr. Presiding Officer,
[31:15] just for clarity,
[31:17] ano pong relevance
[31:19] nung video na ipinakita
[31:21] ni
[31:23] Attorney Zuleika Lopez?
[31:26] Sinasabi po ba ng depensa
[31:28] na yung mga alleged threats
[31:30] or alleged incitements
[31:33] ni VP Duterte
[31:35] ay prompted
[31:37] nung detensyon
[31:39] ni Atty. Lopez?
[31:40] Yes, Your Honor.
[31:41] There was a systematic
[31:43] oppression
[31:44] made by the House of Representatives
[31:46] dating back from their
[31:48] even before their mini-trial, Your Honor.
[31:52] The committee headed by Representative Joel Chua began investigating the Vice President and her people.
[32:01] Even when Attorney Zuleika Lopez was being interviewed by the House Committee of Quadcom Committee, Your Honor,
[32:12] even if she was answering the questions faithfully and to the best of her ability, she was cited in contempt, detained.
[32:26] Her lawyer was not allowed to be with her when they were trying to detain her in the women's correctional facility, Your Honor.
[32:39] So, Mr. Presiding Officer,
[32:42] counsel for the defense,
[32:44] a position po ba ng depensa na pwedeng palampasin ang alleged grave threats kung may masasabing lehitimong dahilan para magbanta?
[33:02] Your Honor, that is not the point.
[33:04] No, no, no.
[33:05] Mr. Presiding Officer,
[33:06] I am making a point through my question
[33:09] and I am asking the good counsel for the defense
[33:12] dahil sinabi nila there was a systematic oppression
[33:16] that yes, yan po ang nagprompt
[33:20] nung alleged grave threats and alleged incitements
[33:24] ng Vice President na prompt po ng detensyon ni
[33:28] Attorney Lopez na kanyang inilarawan sa ipinakitang video kanina.
[33:33] Kaya itinatanong ko kung yan ba ang posisyon ng depensa na pwedeng okay lang
[33:42] or pwedeng tanggapin ang grave threats kung may masasabing lehitimong dahilan para magbanta.
[33:51] Yes, Your Honor.
[33:52] Before counsel for respondent answers,
[33:54] although he already answered in the affirmative.
[33:57] No, Your Honor, I was just referring to before.
[34:00] We would like to remind the Senator Judges
[34:04] to be cautious in making counsels for either party make conclusions of law and fact
[34:10] instead of presenting evidence through a witness they will present
[34:13] or through direct, cross, redirect or recross.
[34:18] Because if he answers, Senator Judgen de Veros, that would effectively place on record
[34:25] a conclusion of fact and law not drawn from a witness,
[34:30] which they can very well do so during their closing remarks.
[34:32] And when I allowed him to speak by way of repartie to the peroration yesterday
[34:37] and discussion yesterday by counsel for the prosecution.
[34:40] But other than that, as agreed with some of the Senator Judges,
[34:45] we would try to limit the answers of the counsels for the parties.
[34:49] With your indulgence, Senator Judge de Veros, please.
[34:52] I submit, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just in closing make of record
[34:58] that I also appreciated and also submitted to the ruling of the presiding officer yesterday
[35:05] because I appreciated that it partook of the history of impeachment proceedings in this court.
[35:17] In this court, I was asked for the previous impeachment trials
[35:23] and that even before they became a liberal,
[35:28] they were going to answer their questions
[35:30] and the questions of the Sen. Judges
[35:32] so that they would only be able to separate the other points.
[35:35] So I again thank the good presiding officer
[35:38] and again reiterate my submission to his ruling
[35:41] and thank the good counsel for the defense for his response.
[35:44] We thank Senator de Veros for her indulgence and understanding.
[35:47] Thank you.
[35:48] Senator Villanueva and thereafter, Senate President Gachalian.
[35:52] You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes.
[35:56] Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[36:00] May I just point out something to the witness?
[36:05] Mr. President, Your Honors, the witness mentioned yesterday
[36:09] that the reported statements of the vice president were referred to the presidential security command
[36:19] and evaluated in coordination with the National Security Council
[36:24] just to assist the court in evaluating the relevance and weight of the government security response
[36:30] in determining whether the respondent conduct constitutes an impeachable offense.
[36:41] May we know from the witness at could the witness explain
[36:46] yung threats po ba, how threats against the president are ordinarily assessed by the government?
[36:53] Kasi dito yung lumalabas yung pag-weigh natin whether or not meron bang bigat yung threat
[37:03] o ito'y ordinary yung threat na nangyayari sa pang-araw-araw nating buhay.
[37:08] Specifically, Mr. Witness, what factors are taken into account in evaluating a reported threat
[37:17] threat and in determining appropriate measures?
[37:23] I can't answer on the part of the NSC or TNO because I'm not part of the institution.
[37:29] In your capacity as an agent?
[37:31] In my capacity, what of the consideration if it's an active threat,
[37:37] if it's the one giving the threat is capable of doing so?
[37:42] Meaning, high-ranking officials and if you say an official?
[37:46] High-ranking officials have a capability or power over to implement those such threats?
[37:53] It is considered, sir.
[37:55] Example, a mayor perhaps? Would you say a high-ranking official?
[37:59] A congressman?
[38:00] Or yung basihan po ng kanyang threat?
[38:04] Kunyari ang threat ko, dadalhin kita doon sa buwan.
[38:07] Wala naman akong space shuttle.
[38:09] So wala din pong bearing yun.
[38:11] Is that the correct assumption?
[38:15] Not only, sir, but also how it was delivered, sir.
[38:19] Like what was mentioned that I mentioned previously,
[38:24] it was mentioned that no joke, no joke.
[38:26] It's a serious.
[38:28] So that is the…
[38:29] One of the considerations, sir.
[38:30] That's the consideration.
[38:31] Thank you very much.
[38:32] And lastly, Mr. Witness,
[38:34] you made mention na submit mo sa DOJ noong January 30.
[38:39] Is it the same affidavit that you submitted to the HOR?
[38:42] The one that submitted to the HOR is the affidavit dated February, sir.
[38:48] So that's the latest?
[38:49] Yes, sir.
[38:50] The one that complied with the requirements of the DOJ, sir.
[38:53] Thank you very much for that clarification.
[38:54] Thank you, Mr. President.
[38:55] Thank you, Senator Villeneva.
[38:56] Before I recognize Senate President Gachalian and thereafter Senator Irwin Tulfo,
[39:02] may I remind Attorney Narvasa that your five minutes,
[39:06] you'll be given your five minutes after the questions of the Senator Judges
[39:11] and before we recognize the counsel for the prosecutor for his redirect.
[39:17] Senate President Gachalian is recognized.
[39:19] You may proceed, sir.
[39:20] You have two minutes.
[39:21] Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[39:22] May I be clarified?
[39:23] I believe that we would do it after recross.
[39:25] Iowa, I heard cross.
[39:27] Sorry, Your Honor.
[39:28] After recross.
[39:29] Yes, Your Honor.
[39:30] Thank you, Your Honor.
[39:31] Better for us.
[39:32] Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[39:33] I just have a few questions, clarificatory questions.
[39:36] Narinig ko ko kanina ginong testigo na sabi niyo may 40 media personalities doon sa Prescon.
[39:43] Tama po ba?
[39:44] Yes, Your Honor.
[39:45] Pero ang inyong inimbitahan ay 6 lang.
[39:48] Yes, Your Honor.
[39:50] Bakit 6 lang?
[39:52] The 40, we see the number of participants,
[39:55] but the number of person who asked the Vice President during that time, it's limited.
[40:01] And we consider who we sure that is present during that time, Your Honor.
[40:06] Meron bang kayong criteria kung paano pipiliin itong mga media personalities
[40:16] or kung sino lang nagtanong?
[40:18] Kasi kahit hindi ka naman magtatanong, nandoon ka naman,
[40:21] naririnig mo yung mga diskusyon,
[40:25] meron ba kayong mga criteria kung paano pumipiliin ang media personalities?
[40:29] Yung sure po namin na present during that time.
[40:32] Kasi kapag hindi po kasi kayo nagtanong,
[40:34] hindi po magpapop up yung mukha nyo,
[40:36] tsaka yung pangalan nyo.
[40:37] Okay.
[40:39] At itong mga anim na sinupina ninyo,
[40:45] ano yung kanyang common statement na ibinigay?
[40:49] Kinonfirm po nila na present sila during the November 23,
[40:52] 2024 press conference
[40:54] and yung utterance po ni Vice President narinig po nila.
[40:58] Okay.
[40:59] I believe ilan dito sa mga personalities ay ipapatawag rin.
[41:02] So tatalon ako sa ibang topic.
[41:05] Nakita ko kanina itong tungkol sa MaxCore Interventures
[41:11] at nakita ko kanina,
[41:13] pinakita yung Articles of Incorporation,
[41:17] mukha siyang supplier ng equipment.
[41:20] Ngayon, nasabi rin na doon ka nag-training for two weeks.
[41:24] Sino nagbayad ng training?
[41:27] Sir, the training is included in the procurement of digital forensic tools.
[41:32] In the procurement document,
[41:35] nirequire po si MaxCore na mag-provide po
[41:38] nung training included in the equipment, sir.
[41:41] Yung paggamit ng equipment?
[41:43] Tsaka yung ano po, yung process po ng digital forensic as a whole.
[41:46] Yung kanya lang pag sila ba ay,
[41:50] diba, sa mga IT, let's say, Oracle.
[41:54] Alam natin, kilala yan pagdating sa IT.
[41:57] Si MaxCore ba ay kilala pagdating sa digital forensic training?
[42:03] Kasi sa alam, pag nakita ko kanina, talagang supplier sila.
[42:07] But are they a well-known or internationally renowned training organization?
[42:15] It's not the MaxCore itself, but it's the trainer that they provide, sir,
[42:20] that is capable in training us, sir.
[42:23] Itong trainer na ito, certified siya in this type of technology?
[42:29] Yes, sir. The trainer has a lot of certifications in relation to digital forensic, sir.
[42:34] Can you name a few certifications na meron itong trainer na ito?
[42:38] I can't remember, sir.
[42:41] Let's say, Oracle or let's say, Microsoft, diba? May mga ganyan yan.
[42:44] No, sir. Comtea, sir. Comtea training.
[42:48] I believe he also have a certified ethical hacking certification
[42:53] and a lot more, sir, when it was presented to us, sir.
[42:56] All right. So itong mga trainers nito ay certified trainers na pwedeng mag-train sa'yo at magiging certified ka rin?
[43:05] Yes, sir. Inissue na akong certificates.
[43:07] Lastly, Mr. Presiding Officer, after training, nakakuha ka ba ng certification na katulad sa kanila?
[43:14] No, sir. But that certification that I was trained by them, sir.
[43:18] Pero ikaw mismo, are you certified to do forensic examinations for your purpose and responsibility?
[43:29] I have a certification, sir. I am a certified computer hacking forensic investigator, sir.
[43:34] Itong forensic analysis, meron kang, for this purpose, itong pinag-uusapan natin.
[43:40] The computer, the authentication, sir, part, or as a whole, sir?
[43:45] As a whole, as a whole.
[43:47] I have a certification in computer hacking, sir, specific, but I have trainings in relation to the...
[43:52] Iba yung hacking eh. Yung pinag-uusapan natin, forensic examination ng video, forensic examination ng mga ganitong bagay. Meron kang certification doon?
[44:01] I have a certificate, sir.
[44:02] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[44:05] Senator Judge Irvin Tulfo, thereafter, Senator Judge Marcos. You may proceed, sir. You have two minutes.
[44:12] Maraming salamat, Mr. Chair, Mr. Presiding Officer.
[44:18] Ang katanungan ko po ay para sa ating testigo.
[44:22] Batid ko po na sa ilalim ng Republic of 108-67, sa ilalim po ng Section 4, ang kapangyarihan po ng inyong ahensya na mag-imbestiga kapag ng mga krimen, particular na tulad ng mga banta sa buhay ng Pangulo, ikalawang Pangulo, Senate President, Speaker of the House at Chief Justice. Tama po yun.
[44:50] Yes, Your Honor.
[44:51] Kahit na lalupat pag ito ay may kaugnayan sa national security. Tama po?
[44:59] Yes, Your Honor.
[45:00] Pero ang tanong ko po, ang pagsasampa po ba ng kaso na sa mandato rin po ba ng NBI na magsampa ng kaso doon sa mga tao na nagbanta sa buhay ng Pangulo, ikalawang Pangulo, Senate President, Speaker of the House, Chief Justice.
[45:16] Is it automatic or kailangan mag-request sila sa inyo?
[45:22] Matik ba yung pagsasampa ng kaso doon sa nagbanta? In this case, is it automatic or wala lang?
[45:26] Kasama sa mandato niyo to file charges dahil binantaan mo Pangulo o si Vice President kung sino mang yung apat na matataas na opisyal natin?
[45:36] Ang basis namin doon, Your Honor, is yung primary objective namin to investigate cases to the threat to the President, Vice President, Senate President, Supreme Court.
[45:51] And if we found that the evidence is enough, that there is a crime committed, we will file a case because that's the output of our investigation, sir.
[46:01] Kahit po ba na hindi yung biktima, in this case, yung Pangulo, biktima ng pag-threat, kahit na hindi siya nagreklamo sa inyo?
[46:16] Yes, Your Honor.
[46:17] Okay.
[46:18] Hindi nyo na siya kailangan tanongin pa na, sir, gusto nyo po bang kasuhan namin ito?
[46:24] Wala nang ganon.
[46:25] You will never ask.
[46:26] Sabihin natin, hindi lang Pangulo, Vice Presidente.
[46:29] Nangyari din siya Vice Presidente o sa Speaker of the House, sa Senate President, sa Chief Justice.
[46:34] Hindi nyo naman lang siya afford to ask him like, sir, will you go to the process?
[46:40] Kasi magpa-file ka po ng mga affidavit, this is a long process, et cetera.
[46:44] Kahit tapangulo ka po, may pipirmahan ka mga affidavit.
[46:47] Is it automatic, Mr. Witness?
[46:50] We submitted it, sir, even without a complaint for preliminary investigation, sir.
[46:55] No further questions?
[46:58] Thank you, Senator Judge Irwin Tulfos.
[47:01] Senator Judge Marcos is recognized.
[47:03] You may proceed, ma'am, and you have two minutes.
[47:05] Yes, maraming salamat. Mahal na namo muna.
[47:07] Hihingi lang po ako ng dokumento para mas madali nating sundan.
[47:10] Ang mga pangyayari.
[47:12] Nalilito lahat pagkat wala po kaming papel.
[47:15] At ang nabigay sa amin, eto, Annex FFFGGG.
[47:19] Nalilito po kami kung alin dito yung mga papel.
[47:21] Kung maaari kaming bigyan, unang-una, yung unang tinutukoy,
[47:26] the first affidavit of investigation dated January 30,
[47:31] alleging grave threats inciting to sedition ng NBI.
[47:34] Ikalawa, yung napasok na yata sa record,
[47:38] pero nais rin namin bilang Senator Judge na magkaroon ng kopya
[47:42] nung DOJ certification signed by Prosecutor Bandung February 5
[47:49] na nagbigay ng pitong grounds na insufficient for preliminary investigation.
[47:55] Ikatlo, yung naibigay na.
[47:58] Ito, klaro to.
[47:59] Naibigay po ni Mavic at ng iba pang staff natin yung February 10,
[48:04] yung ikalawang amended na ibinigay na revised affidavit of authentication,
[48:10] February 11.
[48:12] Ngunit, sabi ni Testigo Kalilong,
[48:16] na meron kasama ito,
[48:18] na wala rito sa record natin,
[48:20] at sana maibigay si Senator Judge,
[48:23] ito yung sulat kasama nung Second Revised Affidavit of Authentication.
[48:29] Ito naman yung sinasabing sulat ni Santiago Que Padulion ng DOJ
[48:36] na nagsasaad na hindi kailangan na may private complainant
[48:41] yung sinapresidente, ang first lady, at saka yung dating speaker
[48:46] dahil base sa kaso ng Santos Concio versus DOJ na 2008,
[48:51] eh hindi daw kailangan yung private complainant.
[48:54] May we also have a copy of the same.
[48:57] Finally, may we urge that a copy also be given
[49:03] of February 14 certification of DOJ
[49:07] asserting that the revised Affidavit of Investigation
[49:11] was finally sufficient.
[49:13] Nais lang namin makita yun,
[49:16] at alamin yung investigation data huling-huli,
[49:20] nung March 7,
[49:22] almost a month after the submission of the Affidavit of Authentication,
[49:26] kasi halos isang buwan bago utusan
[49:30] na magkaroon ng investigation data form.
[49:33] Sana may kopya rin tayo noon.
[49:35] To respond to Senator Judge Marcos,
[49:38] what the court has copies of are the pre-marked documents
[49:44] that the parties pre-marked during pre-trial,
[49:48] but not documents that have not yet been pre-marked.
[49:51] Most of the documents you mentioned
[49:54] that was discussed by counsel for respondent
[49:57] has not yet been pre-marked.
[50:00] They only used it to confront via cross-examination
[50:03] the witness of the prosecution.
[50:05] But the ones we have, we will furnish it with a reminder,
[50:08] of course, Senator Judge Marcos,
[50:09] that these documents have not yet been formally offered by either party,
[50:14] and we still have to await formal offer before the court rules on the admissibility,
[50:19] if at all of these documents.
[50:21] But we will endeavor to furnish the good Senator Judge with whatever the clerk has.
[50:26] Yes, if we could be provided with whatever the clerk has,
[50:30] and adequately identified not as GGGGG or FFFFF,
[50:35] at sana kung mabuo yung mga dokumentong sinasabi sa lalong madaling panahon.
[50:42] Maraming salamat.
[50:43] We will endeavor to comply as best we can,
[50:46] Senator Judge Marcos.
[50:47] Senator Judge Allan Cayetano.
[50:50] What is your pleasure, sir?
[50:53] Sir President and Mr. Presiding Officer,
[50:57] before I ask to be allowed to ask a question,
[51:00] can I just follow up yung kay Senator Marcos,
[51:03] including the ruling yesterday?
[51:06] Just in the interest of all Senator Judges being able to follow closely,
[51:14] especially kami sa first row,
[51:15] kasi medyo nagkaka-stiff-neck na kami.
[51:17] Mahirap tignan yung TV,
[51:20] so baka doon sa harap.
[51:21] Maglalagay na po kami ng TV sa harap ng langyasa ng Council for Parties.
[51:24] I don't know,
[51:25] I think all of us own a iPad or a tablet.
[51:30] I don't know what the solution is,
[51:34] but if the Secretariat or the Clerk of Court,
[51:38] the Office of the Clerk of Court can work with our staff.
[51:41] Just to give you an example for today,
[51:47] if you look at the impeachment complaint on page 19,
[51:53] for example,
[51:56] it says that the affidavit we were looking for kanina,
[52:01] footnote number 72,
[52:05] is this one in the impeachment complaint.
[52:10] It's found on Annex G.
[52:13] Okay, so this is Annex G.
[52:15] If you look at Annex G,
[52:20] it is a certification, not an affidavit.
[52:23] Okay, so where do you find the affidavit
[52:27] mentioned in the impeachment complaint?
[52:33] You actually find it in Volume 14 Annex FFFFFFFFFF-GGGGGG.
[52:49] So before I can even say that…
[52:51] That's FFFFFF to GGGGGGG.
[52:54] Yes.
[52:55] So even before we finish saying that,
[52:58] Your Honor, Mr. Presiding Judge,
[53:02] it may be hard.
[53:03] To further complicate,
[53:04] the Annex S when delivered to us
[53:06] was labeled Annex S,
[53:10] and then when it was pre-marked,
[53:12] Iba na yung marking.
[53:13] That is correct.
[53:14] Okay.
[53:15] So to clarify,
[53:16] I'm not asking both the prosecution and defense
[53:20] to give us any documents in advance
[53:22] that will prejudice their presentation
[53:25] or the rebuttal.
[53:27] I do understand that it has to be offered,
[53:29] but to speed things up
[53:32] and to make sure we understand,
[53:34] in the same manner that they're asking the witness
[53:36] to examine it,
[53:37] maybe we can be given a copy to examine at the same time,
[53:41] whether digital or actual copy.
[53:44] I don't want to impose upon them to print 24 copies,
[53:47] but again, anyway, it's Wednesday.
[53:50] We have Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
[53:53] for our staff and the clerk of court to meet.
[53:56] I think we already have a solution for you,
[53:58] Senator Judge Cayetano,
[53:59] as well as for Senator Judge Marcos.
[54:02] We will be furnishing the parties
[54:04] either via soft copy to your respective iPads or laptops,
[54:08] or we will enter their official emails as well.
[54:11] Kayo na po magprint ng hard copy,
[54:13] ng list of evidences as marked,
[54:20] as pre-marked by the prosecution na ipe-present for Article 4.
[54:25] And we will do this by article.
[54:28] However, insofar as I said,
[54:30] the documents presented by the Council for Respondent,
[54:34] these have not yet been pre-marked.
[54:36] But I don't think there's anything wrong with asking for a copy from the Council for Respondent
[54:42] for our guidance whether or not the same will be offered without prejudice
[54:46] to respond to the Council for Respondent deciding on whether or not they will offer it at the appropriate time.
[54:50] On that point, Mr. Providing Officer,
[54:53] even if it's pre-marked,
[54:55] if it will prejudice their presentation,
[54:57] I don't mind it be given in real time.
[55:00] And same, no?
[55:01] If it's being used on cross or recross on rebuttal,
[55:05] and hindi ito na pre-marked,
[55:07] as long as real time,
[55:08] para lang we can process it.
[55:10] If not, we have to review afterwards.
[55:12] And it messes up our preparation for the hearing the next day.
[55:16] Is that possible for the parties once the roles are reversed?
[55:19] May I get a response from the Council for Respondent?
[55:22] Your Honor, first we'll clarify.
[55:24] Everything that was showed today was pre-marked by the respondent.
[55:30] That's not my understanding because the DOJ letter you pre-marked
[55:34] is different from the DOJ letter that we have pre-marked.
[55:38] But we'll verify.
[55:39] So everything was pre-marked?
[55:40] Yes, Your Honor.
[55:41] But you presented a document that was not pre-marked
[55:45] either by the prosecution or the defense.
[55:48] I presented all that was pre-marked.
[55:52] So if it was pre-marked,
[55:53] it's our look out and kindly for
[55:55] then there's no problem furnishing the senator judges
[55:57] with a copy of the same.
[55:58] We have no problem with that, Your Honor.
[55:59] Senator Judge Alad Cayetano's concern
[56:03] has no basis if it was all pre-marked.
[56:06] Apparently, it was our oversight.
[56:08] Council for the prosecutors, would that be possible?
[56:11] Yes.
[56:12] To furnish it?
[56:13] I think what Council for Respondent did earlier helped us out a lot.
[56:17] Plastering it on the screens, whatever affidavit you were presenting.
[56:22] I think the Council for the Prosecutors should do the same.
[56:25] Yes, Mr. President.
[56:27] It's okay.
[56:29] Senator Judge Aladay?
[56:31] Thank you.
[56:32] And just to clarify, the two minutes is the question, not including the answer.
[56:36] Yes, of course.
[56:37] You have two minutes if you want to start with asking questions.
[56:40] If they ask to repeat the question, please don't count that.
[56:44] Two minutes is long with short questions, but many of us want to get to the bottom of it and end up only asking one or two questions.
[56:53] So, just a little bit of liberality.
[56:54] We will be lenient, Senator Judge Aladay.
[56:56] Thank you.
[56:57] Thank you very much.
[56:58] I appreciate it.
[56:59] You may proceed, sir.
[57:00] You have two minutes.
[57:01] Yes.
[57:02] And maybe to put all of us in check, I don't mind if any of the Council says the question.
[57:10] I mean, given what happened yesterday and today, and there are questions that could prejudice the case either way.
[57:18] As long as we call each other out respectfully, to both Councils, you cannot correct a Senator Judge, but I don't mind if you think it prejudices.
[57:30] That's your duty to your client.
[57:32] Yes, sir.
[57:33] So, this isn't the start of the two minutes yet.
[57:36] Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.
[57:38] Dr. Nin, Your Honor.
[57:39] It's a bit hard to go there, but allow me a few questions.
[57:43] Just the circumstances.
[57:45] So, how did you start the investigation when you were involved?
[57:48] Were you from the start or not at written instructions?
[57:52] Or did you say, we have an investigation?
[57:54] Just a little clarity of how did you start the specific investigation?
[57:58] And was it based on the November 3 video?
[58:01] Tama ba?
[58:02] November 23, Your Honor.
[58:03] Okay.
[58:04] It all started, I received a phone call, sir, from my executive officer, that there is a video wherein there is a statement given by the Vice President, which is classified as threat.
[58:19] And I was tasked and assigned to investigate the case, sir.
[58:23] Okay.
[58:24] So, basically, ganun yung pagkasabi, na I'm tasking you to look at the video and investigate.
[58:29] Yes, Your Honor.
[58:30] Were you working alone or with a group?
[58:32] With a group, Your Honor.
[58:33] NBI group?
[58:34] Yes, Your Honor.
[58:35] And was this, is there an interagency also or just purely NBI?
[58:40] I don't have personal knowledge.
[58:42] Maybe Archib, sir, has the knowledge on that, sir.
[58:44] Okay.
[58:45] No, that's all I asked for naman, yung personal knowledge.
[58:47] Yes, Your Honor.
[58:48] Ano ang, so, pakiulit mo yung sinabing, how exactly sinabi sa'yo na, tignan mo yung video, investigahan mo or may statement?
[58:59] So, to be specific, sir, as far as remember, may statement si Vice President regarding the November 23 press conference, kung saan may pagbabanta na naganap, pakiimbestigahan.
[59:19] Pakiimbestigahan.
[59:20] Pakiimbestigahan. So, ganun ka, General.
[59:21] Yes, po.
[59:22] May pagbabantang naganap, pakiimbestigahan.
[59:23] Yes, po.
[59:24] And you proceeded by watching the video.
[59:26] Yes, Your Honor.
[59:27] And when you watched the video, you got to the part na may pagbabanta.
[59:30] No, Your Honor, I don't, I first don't know which part of that.
[59:36] So, you watched the whole video, of course.
[59:37] First, the clippings, Your Honor.
[59:39] Okay.
[59:40] Then, I look for the whole video, Your Honor.
[59:42] Then, you watched the whole video.
[59:43] Yes, Your Honor.
[59:44] And thank you for your honesty.
[59:45] So, after the clipping, tapos the whole video, what did you do next?
[59:49] You reported or you made your recommendations?
[59:52] I don't understand the process lang kasi.
[59:54] Upon identifying the whole video, I informed my executive officer that I identified the video, Your Honor.
[1:00:01] And then, yung sinabi mo yesterday, then you started looking for patterns.
[1:00:07] That's why you looked at yung dating mga video ni Vice President.
[1:00:10] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:00:11] So, you started investigating the threat against the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker of the House.
[1:00:17] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:00:18] Did you investigate the threat against the Vice President?
[1:00:20] We tried, Your Honor.
[1:00:21] How did you try?
[1:00:22] It is included in our letter to the Vice President, Your Honor.
[1:00:28] That's why we're inviting her to proceed to our office to investigate the threats to her life, Your Honor.
[1:00:34] How about the vlogger who asked her about Oplan or whatever they call that Romanov?
[1:00:41] Did you invite them?
[1:00:42] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:00:43] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:00:44] And did they testify?
[1:00:45] The Princess Maui did not appear, Your Honor.
[1:00:48] Did not appear.
[1:00:49] Did you also look for previous videos that are threatening to the Vice President?
[1:00:55] We looked on the Romanov part, Your Honor, but we identified a different person who first mentioned the Romanov, Your Honor.
[1:01:07] Did you coordinate with the PSG?
[1:01:09] I have no personal knowledge, Your Honor.
[1:01:12] You yourself?
[1:01:13] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:01:14] Maybe our Chief, Your Honor.
[1:01:15] But you are aware that the primary responsibility of protecting both the President and the Vice President is the PSG?
[1:01:21] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:01:22] So isn't it fair to say that any investigation against a threat to the first family, the President or the Vice President, you would normally ask the PSG if they received any threat?
[1:01:35] I have no personal knowledge, Your Honor.
[1:01:39] So I'm asking, hindi ba normal sa investigation kung sino yung primary agency na taga-protekta na lumalaban dun sa threat ay tatanungin natin?
[1:01:49] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:01:51] So bakit hindi tinanong ng NBI ang PSG?
[1:01:54] Or in your case, why didn't you ask the PSG?
[1:01:56] Maybe it can be answered by a Chief, Your Honor.
[1:02:02] No, I will ask your Chief also.
[1:02:04] I'm asking you.
[1:02:05] When they said, look at this, you looked at other videos, you tried to get Princess Maui, you tried to get the Vice President, but you didn't contact the PSG for the First Lady, for the President.
[1:02:17] And for all you know, the PSG will tell you right there and there, the threat is real, or the PSG will say political lang yan.
[1:02:24] Diba?
[1:02:25] Both the Vice President and the President are protected by the PSG.
[1:02:29] So why wasn't...
[1:02:30] So nakalimutan lang, or wala sa procedure nyo, or...
[1:02:34] Your Honor, there's already a statement from the National Security Council, Your Honor, that it is an active threat, Your Honor.
[1:02:41] That's why we start investigation.
[1:02:42] Yes, and the primary group that will know if it's an active threat is the PSG.
[1:02:49] So if this was the United States, it will be the Secret Service.
[1:02:52] So whether the FBI or the CIA, state troopers, the federal marshals, kung sino man mag-iimbestiga, parati nilang tatanungin yung Secret Service.
[1:03:02] So I'm just curious why we did not ask the PSG input.
[1:03:08] Kindly wind up, Senator Keitano, Senator George Keitano.
[1:03:11] So my last question is, how did you characterize the threat of the Vice President to the President?
[1:03:23] Given that, ang exact words niya, wag kang mag-alalamam sa security ko kasi may kinausap na akong tao, sinabi ko sa kanya, kapag pinatay ako.
[1:03:34] So, I'll be fair to you and not vague, no?
[1:03:38] Did that phrase, kapag pinatay ako, have any bearing in your investigation?
[1:03:45] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:03:46] And what was that bearing or thoughts in your mind?
[1:03:49] First of all po, dun sa statement, may nakausap na po. It already took place before pa yung mangyari yung meeting.
[1:03:57] Excuse me, I'm not talking about yung may kinausap na para pumatay.
[1:04:01] Ang sinasabi ko yung sinabi niya na pag pinatay ako.
[1:04:05] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:04:06] How did that affect your investigation?
[1:04:09] There is a condition na kapag pinatay siya, but as we can see, it's only applicable if there is only two parties.
[1:04:17] The statement make a loophole wherein a third party can use that na kapag namatay si BP, ma-execute ngayon yung statement ni BP na may nakausap na siya without the participation of the one mentioned, the President, the First Lady, and the Speaker of the House, Your Honor.
[1:04:40] That's fair. But what I'm saying is that in your reports, did you characterize it as a conditional threat?
[1:04:47] Kasi kung hindi naman siya pinatay, the logical implication is that there's no threat against the…
[1:04:52] So I'm not saying it's not illegal, immoral to contract a killer. I'm just trying to follow the logic.
[1:04:59] So pag sinabi kong pakukulong kita, Mr. Witness, pag nagsinungaling ka under oath, then it's actually not a threat. It's a legal…
[1:05:11] I'm just telling you the law, di ba?
[1:05:13] Pero pag sinabi kong pag hindi ka sumunod sa akin, ano yung kita?
[1:05:18] So that's my last question lang.
[1:05:20] So how did you characterize that it wasn't a conditional in your mind because may kinausap na?
[1:05:27] Even with or without, sir, it's still considered a threat as long as the…
[1:05:32] I have no doubt there. I'm just asking, is it a conditional threat?
[1:05:41] Based on our affidavit, sir, I believe it's conditional which…
[1:05:46] Based on your affidavit?
[1:05:47] Affidavit.
[1:05:48] But your initial assessment, personal mo as an investigator…
[1:05:51] This is an investigation of the whole NBI but yung personal mo.
[1:05:54] The threat is absolute, sir.
[1:05:56] Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
[1:05:58] Thank you.
[1:05:59] Thank you, Senator Judge Calitano.
[1:06:00] We now proceed.
[1:06:01] Senator Judge Padilla is recognized.
[1:06:05] Maraming salamat po.
[1:06:07] Thereafter, Senator Judge Zubiri.
[1:06:10] Maraming salamat po.
[1:06:11] Senator Judge Padilla, you have two minutes.
[1:06:13] Opo.
[1:06:14] Nais ko lamang po magtanong sa ating saksi.
[1:06:17] Ginong saksi, kanina po kasi habang nagkakaroon ng pagdinig,
[1:06:26] ako po'y laging i-istorbo.
[1:06:31] Dahil tuwing maitatanong, mag-u-object, mag-u-object, medyo magulo po eh.
[1:06:35] Pwede po bang sagutin po ninyo ako dahil noong pong February 5,
[1:06:42] ang sabi po dito ay insufficient po yung na hindi dapat makarating na sa preliminary investigation.
[1:06:55] Tama po ba?
[1:06:56] February 5 po yun?
[1:06:58] May certification, sir.
[1:06:59] Yes, ma'am.
[1:07:00] Tapos, noong February 14, naging sufficient na for conduct of preliminary investigation.
[1:07:09] Nasagot po ba yung pito na sinabi dito na para ang sinasabi po kasi dito noong February 5,
[1:07:19] merong pito na kulang?
[1:07:21] I believe so, sir. That's why we have received a certification, sir.
[1:07:27] Ayun.
[1:07:28] Kasi po, parang narinig ko kanina,
[1:07:31] hindi po naibigay yung original copy nung sinagawang interview
[1:07:37] kay Vice President Sara Duterte.
[1:07:41] Yung original po na kopya kung sino po yung nag-record.
[1:07:46] Wala po kayong afidabit?
[1:07:48] Meron po ba kayong afidabit na nakuha nyo?
[1:07:50] Yes, sir.
[1:07:51] Sir, ang nire-request po ng DOJ dyan is affidabit po nung nag-screen record,
[1:07:57] which is my affidabit, Your Honor.
[1:07:58] Meron po siyang afidabit?
[1:08:00] Ako, sir. Ako po yung nag-execute, sir.
[1:08:02] Hindi po yung mismong tao?
[1:08:04] Yes, po. Ang hinihingi po kasi ni DOJ is kung sino yung nag-screen record through OBS, sir.
[1:08:08] Hindi po yung mismong tao?
[1:08:10] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:08:11] Kayo lang po yung nag-afidabit?
[1:08:14] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:08:15] Pero meron po kayong ng pagkakataon ba na nakausap nyo yung tao at nagbigay siya ng afidabit?
[1:08:20] May I clarify, Your Honor, if sinong tao yung tinutukod?
[1:08:24] Yung nag-record po.
[1:08:26] Ako po yung nag-record through OBS, sir.
[1:08:28] Hindi po.
[1:08:29] Yung mismong nag-record po kay Inday, sa Vice President.
[1:08:35] Nakausap nyo po ba?
[1:08:36] Yung raw file po.
[1:08:39] Kasi napakahalaga po nun.
[1:08:41] Kasi doon po natin malalaman kung original ba o hindi.
[1:08:45] The video itself, sir, is publicly available.
[1:08:48] That's why I performed the recording, sir.
[1:08:50] Apo.
[1:08:51] Pakisagot na lang po, mahal na saksi, kung nakuha nyo po ba yung original?
[1:08:56] Yung original, hindi po yung galing sa internet.
[1:08:59] The original, no, sir.
[1:09:03] May lamang po. Maraming salamat po.
[1:09:05] Thank you, Senator Judge Padilla.
[1:09:08] Senator Judge Zabiri, you are recognized, sir.
[1:09:11] You have two minutes.
[1:09:13] Maraming salamat to our presiding officer.
[1:09:15] Magandang apod po, Sir Witness.
[1:09:17] Dr. Nung, Your Honor.
[1:09:18] Dr. Nung, gusto ko lang magtanong.
[1:09:20] Clarificatory questions lang po ito.
[1:09:22] Dito ba sa ating bansa,
[1:09:24] dahil tinatanong po sa inyo,
[1:09:25] dahil kayo po investigating body.
[1:09:27] Sa ating bansa, meron bang specific law
[1:09:30] pagdating sa mga banta,
[1:09:32] sa Pangulo, pangalawang Pangulo,
[1:09:34] at kanyang mga successors?
[1:09:36] Or yan ba yung pasok lang sa grave threats?
[1:09:40] Which is applied sa lahat.
[1:09:42] Applicable sa lahat ng tao.
[1:09:44] Based on my personal knowledge, sir,
[1:09:46] it's only on the grave threat, Your Honor.
[1:09:48] Which is applied to everyone, if I'm not mistaken.
[1:09:51] Kasi sa batas sa Amerika, sa Estados Unidos,
[1:09:55] meron pong tinatawag na number 18
[1:09:58] under the United States Code, section 871.
[1:10:01] There is a specific law
[1:10:05] na tinagbabawal po itong mga threats
[1:10:08] to the President, Vice President,
[1:10:11] and its successors.
[1:10:13] May jail time po ito,
[1:10:15] at may fine na malaki.
[1:10:17] As a matter of fact,
[1:10:18] dito sa panahon ni Pangulong Trump,
[1:10:22] marami na po silang kinasuhan,
[1:10:24] at hinabla,
[1:10:26] at napasok sa kulungan
[1:10:29] dahil sa paglabag nitong batas na ito.
[1:10:32] At Secret Service po,
[1:10:33] ang sumasagawa ng investigasyon.
[1:10:37] Sa atin ba dito ang NBI ba
[1:10:39] ang nabigyan po ng kapangyarihan
[1:10:41] para gawin itong investigasyon?
[1:10:43] Under your new NBI code?
[1:10:45] Under our law sir,
[1:10:46] the new NBI law,
[1:10:47] included po yung investigation
[1:10:49] to the threats to the life of the President,
[1:10:51] the Vice President,
[1:10:53] the Speaker,
[1:10:54] the Senate President,
[1:10:56] and the Supreme Court sir.
[1:10:59] So,
[1:11:00] ah,
[1:11:01] klaro na kayo,
[1:11:02] nasa kapangyarihan ninyo,
[1:11:04] kasi hindi pwede sa Presidential Security Group,
[1:11:06] hindi katulad sa Estados Unidos,
[1:11:08] yung ah,
[1:11:09] ah,
[1:11:10] secret service,
[1:11:11] ang talagang nanguhuli
[1:11:12] at ah,
[1:11:13] naging investigasyon.
[1:11:14] Sa atin dito sa Pilipinas,
[1:11:16] ang NBI po ang nangunguna sa investigasyon.
[1:11:19] Tama po gawin yan o mali?
[1:11:21] It is within our law sir.
[1:11:23] Okay.
[1:11:24] And ah,
[1:11:25] this is just food for thought
[1:11:26] because not only are we Senator Judges,
[1:11:28] we're also legislators.
[1:11:29] It may be time
[1:11:30] that we also craft a law
[1:11:33] that will be specific
[1:11:35] on threats made to the President,
[1:11:37] Vice President,
[1:11:38] and its successors,
[1:11:39] meaning the Senate President,
[1:11:40] the Speaker of the House,
[1:11:41] and the Supreme Court Chief Justice.
[1:11:44] Sa Amerika kasi,
[1:11:45] sa batas po nila,
[1:11:46] and I'll just wrap up.
[1:11:47] The defendant,
[1:11:48] to secure conviction,
[1:11:49] the defendant communicated a threat.
[1:11:52] The defendant understood and intended the statement
[1:11:55] as a true threat.
[1:11:56] Hindi po niya sinabi,
[1:11:57] joke only in the end.
[1:11:59] And pangatlo,
[1:12:00] the defendant knowingly and willfully makes the threat.
[1:12:04] So just food for thought as legislators as well.
[1:12:07] So maraming salamat po.
[1:12:08] The Clerk of Court will now call the roll.
[1:12:18] Roll call of members.
[1:12:19] Senator Judge Aquino.
[1:12:21] Senator Judge Cayetano Alan.
[1:12:24] Senator Judge Cayetano Pia.
[1:12:26] Senator Judge De La Rosa.
[1:12:29] Senator Judge Ejercito.
[1:12:31] Senator Judge Estrada.
[1:12:32] Senator Judge Goh.
[1:12:34] Senator Judge Ontiveros.
[1:12:37] Senator Judge Lacson.
[1:12:38] Senator Judge Lapid.
[1:12:40] Senator Judge Legarda.
[1:12:42] Senator Judge Marcoleta.
[1:12:44] Senator Judge Marcos.
[1:12:46] Senator Judge Padilla.
[1:12:48] Senator Judge Pangilinan.
[1:12:49] Senator Judge Soto III.
[1:12:51] Senator Judge Tulfo Irwin.
[1:12:53] Senator Judge Tulfo Rafi.
[1:12:56] Senator Judge Villanueva.
[1:12:58] Senator Judge Villar Camille.
[1:13:00] Senator Judge Villar Mark.
[1:13:02] Senator Judge Zubiri.
[1:13:05] The presiding officer, Senator Judge Escudero.
[1:13:07] Senator Judge Escudero.
[1:13:08] Senator President Gatulian.
[1:13:09] Senator Gatulian.
[1:13:11] With twenty senators present, the chair declares the presence of the forum.
[1:13:15] We recognize the presiding officer, Senator Chisa Escudero.
[1:13:22] Thank you, Mr. Senate President.
[1:13:24] The presiding officer dispenses with the reading of the journal, and if there are no, unless
[1:13:33] there are objections, considers the journal of July 7, 2026 as approved.
[1:13:39] The clerk of court will please call the case before the impeachment court.
[1:13:44] Case number 004-2026 in the matter of impeachment trial of Vice President Cyrus Zimmerman Duterte.
[1:13:55] Appearances of the parties. Tech, kindly turn on the mic.
[1:14:14] Good afternoon, Your Honors. Same appearance for the prosecution. We are ready, Your Honor.
[1:14:21] Appearances for the respondent.
[1:14:28] Good afternoon, Your Honors. Same appearance for the Vice President.
[1:14:31] Clerk of Court is instructed to kindly bring the witness that was testifying yesterday, I believe Mr. Kalilong.
[1:14:46] Your Honor, the prosecution is ready for the continuation of the presentation of our first witness, NBI agent Kalilong.
[1:14:56] And with that, Your Honor, we would like to request that Attorney Virgil Ligutan, Attorney Amado Ligutan, be recognized, Your Honor.
[1:15:04] For the record, Attorney Ligutan will be representing the Council for Prosecutors, and on the part of the respondent, it will be Attorney Narvaza.
[1:15:26] That will be correct?
[1:15:34] By the way, while we're waiting for the witness, Attorney Narvaza, if you recall, yesterday,
[1:15:40] Attorney Ligutan, in response to a question by a senator judge, gave a discussion, a peroration, if you will.
[1:15:53] But yesterday, I said we will be giving counsel the same opportunity.
[1:15:59] I cleared it earlier with Senator Pia Kaitan, who wanted the statements deleted from the record.
[1:16:07] However, since this is a televised proceeding, nakita na eh, napakinggan na eh.
[1:16:13] So, i-erase ko man sa record, eh, bali wala na lang.
[1:16:17] The fairest thing to do is to give you an opportunity as well.
[1:16:19] Attorney Ligutan spent 5 minutes and 18 seconds delivering his discussion.
[1:16:27] The court will give you the same time, after your cross-examination, with a warning,
[1:16:33] with a warning and reminder from the presiding officer that the presiding officer will not tolerate such perorations again by either party,
[1:16:41] even if it is in response to a question of a senator judge.
[1:16:46] And the presiding officer will try to remind, as best we can, senator judges,
[1:16:51] to let the witnesses present the evidence of both parties instead of the councils presenting both facts and law through their statements.
[1:17:01] Senator Judge Cayetano, Alan.
[1:17:03] I'd like to thank the presiding officer for prudence, for wisdom in trying to resolve this issue.
[1:17:15] And I do understand that we are 24 people, all elected by the people, all wanting justice, all wanting a fair trial.
[1:17:24] Having said that, prudence dictates that we stop ourselves from asking certain questions that can prejudice the whole trial,
[1:17:38] whether or not our intention is to do so.
[1:17:42] So the problem is well stated by the presiding officer that if we simply delete from the record,
[1:17:51] eh, mapapanood nyo na rin naman sa YouTube yung magandang discussion ng prosecution.
[1:17:56] So, on one sense, it is fair to give the defense a chance to answer.
[1:18:03] But on another sense, it's unfair.
[1:18:05] Why?
[1:18:05] Because whoever phrases the question, lamang na eh.
[1:18:11] Kasi yung question nga is, why is this an impeachable offense?
[1:18:15] So, for example, if I was the one who stood up yesterday and I asked the prosecution,
[1:18:20] why is this a political vendetta?
[1:18:22] And why is the house not investigating the flood control instead of investigating the vice president?
[1:18:32] That would be unfair.
[1:18:34] That would be unfair to the house.
[1:18:35] That would be unfair to everyone.
[1:18:37] So, simply giving the prosecution the chance to answer that question I asked would be unfair to everyone.
[1:18:43] So, I do not know the solution.
[1:18:47] I accept the solution of the presiding officer na let's not tolerate any more questions like that.
[1:18:53] I agree with Senator P.
[1:18:54] I don't like being called out.
[1:18:57] But that's the role of the presiding officer and the senate president.
[1:19:01] So, sana yun lang na, one, when we ask the questions, we'll make sure it doesn't prejudice the whole trial.
[1:19:10] Whatever we say here, may ma-accused na lawyering for the prosecution or defense.
[1:19:13] Okay lang yun.
[1:19:15] Okay lang yun.
[1:19:16] Sa prayer nga kahapon, di ba?
[1:19:17] Basta justice, bahala na magalit.
[1:19:19] Okay.
[1:19:20] But my last point, Mr. President, let's give the defense a little latitude in not only answering that question,
[1:19:26] but what you want to say.
[1:19:27] Because nga, the question is unfair.
[1:19:28] So, if you're simply going to answer that question, then it won't solve the problem na nakapagsalita sila five minutes kayo nakapagsalita.
[1:19:36] So, we'll consider, personally, I'll consider the very eloquent answer yesterday as a sort of a closing.
[1:19:43] So, same, same, personally, ang Mr. Presiding Officer, give the latitude to the defense na parang closing din, whatever.
[1:19:52] Because they have affirmative defenses.
[1:19:54] And they did not push us to hear that.
[1:19:56] They went straight to trial.
[1:19:57] So, dun din sa mga nagsasabi na delay sa dami ng objection, that's unfair.
[1:20:03] Let's give everyone latitude here.
[1:20:08] The same thing, I think may konting ano sa internet na photocopies are not original and the council was simply citing, tama ba?
[1:20:17] A Supreme Court decision, no?
[1:20:19] And the rules of court.
[1:20:20] And the rules of court.
[1:20:21] So, I'm just saying, it's an emotional issue.
[1:20:23] So, all of us will be hit, badgered, whatever.
[1:20:27] I think, trabaho naman nung witness natin, bantayan yung internet.
[1:20:30] So, as long as hindi foul, hindi threat.
[1:20:33] But having said that, Mr. President, let's give each other leeway, but only to the point that the trial will not disintegrate, di ba, into a political fiasco or circus.
[1:20:47] Thank you, Mr. President.
[1:20:50] The remarks of Senator Judge Alan Cayetano are noted.
[1:20:54] Senator Judge Pia Cayetano.
[1:20:57] Thank you, Mr. President.
[1:20:59] This will be brief.
[1:20:59] First of all, I'd just like to confirm that I acknowledge what the presiding officer said that I agreed.
[1:21:09] Basically, I'm withdrawing my motion in the interest of fairness because the delivery of justice is about fairness.
[1:21:18] So, kung nakapagsalita nga ang prosecution with their closing statement, eh, pwede rin dapat mag-closing statement ang defense, no?
[1:21:26] So, I am amenable to that.
[1:21:28] But very, very, very briefly, Mr. President, I'd like to put on record, why are we being strict about the rules?
[1:21:37] Why do I have to bother standing up?
[1:21:40] Well, because nothing in this world will run well without the rules.
[1:21:47] Now, my colleagues, the Senate is a basketball-loving Senate.
[1:21:51] Dami dito, hiling mag-basketball.
[1:21:53] Kung ako, volleyball player, colleagues ko, basketball.
[1:21:56] I'll use basketball as an example.
[1:21:57] Will you have a decent basketball game?
[1:22:01] If there's no rules, no, there's rules.
[1:22:03] That's why we stand up.
[1:22:04] And then sometimes, there are also opportunities to question the rules.
[1:22:07] That's also fine.
[1:22:08] But that's why we have to stand up and call the attention of the presiding officer when we feel that the rules are being violated.
[1:22:15] And we will continue to do so when we believe it is necessary in the interest of justice.
[1:22:20] Thank you, Mr. President.
[1:22:21] The remarks of the lady are noted.
[1:22:24] Since we are discussing housekeeping chores and matters, let the presiding officer continue with the same.
[1:22:32] The presiding officer will call for a break midway through in order to afford the parties 15 minutes to relax, go over their notes, and do their thing.
[1:22:42] In regard to senator judges or councils for the parties who are not on deck, you're free to answer the call of nature in the least disruptive manner possible and return afterwards outside of the 15 minutes that we will be doing halfway through the proceedings.
[1:23:06] And finally, a request has been brought to the presiding officer to request as well the senator judges to lower the tone of conversational voices because I think where you're seated is an echo chamber.
[1:23:25] The senator, I hear you hear it in the last minute, and I think where you're at the front of my parents are coming from.
[1:23:40] Just a reminder and one last reminder before I recognize counsel for the respondent.
[1:23:44] Mr. Calilong, you will be testifying once again and will be undergoing cross-examination under the same oath that you took yesterday. Do you understand that?
[1:23:51] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:23:52] Thank you, counsel correspondent, attorney Narvasa. If you are ready, you may proceed with your cross-examination.
[1:24:02] Your Honor, may I be allowed to approach a witness?
[1:24:07] You may do so. Thank you, Your Honor.
[1:24:10] Good afternoon, Mr. Kalilung.
[1:24:15] Dr. Nunn.
[1:24:16] During your direct examination, you testified that you were trained on photo and video authentication.
[1:24:22] Yes, sir.
[1:24:24] You said that you were trained for two weeks?
[1:24:27] Specifically for photo and video, sir.
[1:24:29] Sir, my questions are answerable by yes or a no.
[1:24:33] Can you please constrain yourself to these questions, unless I tell you, okay?
[1:24:37] Objection to that, Your Honor, please.
[1:24:39] And you got this training from Max.
[1:24:42] The four-council correspondent proceeds.
[1:24:45] Counsel for the prosecutor, let the presiding officer recognize you first.
[1:24:49] You are so recognized, sir. What is your objection?
[1:24:51] Thank you so much. Inasmuch as I would like to accommodate the defense,
[1:24:55] that in asking the question, that the witness is to be limited to a yes or no question, Your Honor, please.
[1:25:03] Unfortunately, Your Honor, please, that's not sanctioned in the rules.
[1:25:07] There is nothing in our rules that would allow a defense to constrain a witness, even on cross-examination,
[1:25:15] to answer the questions by a yes or no answer.
[1:25:18] It's not in the rules.
[1:25:19] So, Your Honor, please, we cannot constrain a witness to answering either a yes or a no.
[1:25:24] The witness should be able to qualify.
[1:25:26] The usual answer by the defense is that it could be handled by the prosecution on redirect.
[1:25:33] But that is not the case, Your Honor, please.
[1:25:36] So long as there is nothing in the rules that would allow the defense to constrain the witness to answer yes or no,
[1:25:43] the prosecution will vehemently object to that, Your Honor, please.
[1:25:49] The presiding officer overrules the objection.
[1:25:53] The counsel for prosecutors can make a continuing objection regarding this matter.
[1:25:57] But it is the position of the presiding officer that the witness is seasoned enough.
[1:26:02] According to his testimony yesterday, he has attended over, if I recall correctly, 30 hearings already.
[1:26:08] So he would know how to respond and to explain if the need would arise.
[1:26:13] And it's up for counsel for the responding, if at all, to strike out whatever answers that are not responsive to his question.
[1:26:19] Counsel for responding may proceed.
[1:26:20] Thank you.
[1:26:21] We would abide, Your Honor.
[1:26:22] We would abide.
[1:26:24] Thank you, counsel for the prosecutors.
[1:26:25] And you testified that you got this training from MaxCore Interventures, correct?
[1:26:31] Yes, sir.
[1:26:33] And you said that the training you got from MaxCore Interventures was in digital forensics?
[1:26:38] Yes, sir.
[1:26:39] I have with me in Articles of Partnership of MaxCore Interventures Co.
[1:26:46] You see that it states that it is the Articles of Partnership of MaxCore Interventures Co.
[1:26:52] Your Honor, may we allow attorney Stephen Magallion to also approach the witness's stand to peruse the document.
[1:27:04] And of course, at this juncture, Your Honor, please. I have two objects.
[1:27:07] I have no question yet, Your Honor.
[1:27:09] I am objecting to the witness being shown an Articles of Incorporation of a partnership, Your Honor, please.
[1:27:25] Anyway, since the question has not been asked, I will…
[1:27:27] Let us wait for the question, counsel.
[1:27:29] In the meantime, the presiding officer allows counsel for the prosecutors to examine the document being presented to the witness.
[1:27:36] And Your Honor, for the reference of the senators, we are flashing this Articles of Partnership on the screens.
[1:27:46] Sir, please take a look at page two of these articles.
[1:27:50] Page two, sir.
[1:28:00] That's here.
[1:28:01] Page one.
[1:28:02] Page two.
[1:28:03] Let's read it together, okay?
[1:28:07] Okay.
[1:28:10] Primary purpose.
[1:28:11] To engage in the business of trading both import and export of goods on wholesale, retail basis.
[1:28:19] Do you see that, sir?
[1:28:20] Yes, sir.
[1:28:21] Okay.
[1:28:23] Now on page…
[1:28:24] The very same page two.
[1:28:27] The secondary purpose.
[1:28:28] Let's read it together again.
[1:28:29] To own, use, improve, develop, subdivide, sell, exchange, lease of all kinds, including buildings, houses, apartments, and other structures.
[1:28:42] Do you see that, sir?
[1:28:44] Yes, sir.
[1:28:47] After that, in the same page two, the secondary purpose is to print, publish, distribute, buy, sell, 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 may time to time be deemed needful, necessary, or
[1:29:19] required.
[1:29:21] You see that, sir?
[1:29:22] Yes, sir.
[1:29:27] Thank you, sir.
[1:29:28] Now I'm showing you a screenshot of the website of this MaxCore Interventures Co.
[1:29:36] It states under, about us.
[1:29:41] I'm also flashing this on the screen, Your Honors, for the ease of these, the Senator Judges.
[1:29:46] Your Honor, at this juncture, the prosecution will now manifest that there was no question propounded as to the presentation
[1:30:03] of the Articles of Partnership.
[1:30:06] And the Council is now moving forward to the presentation of an alleged website.
[1:30:12] Therefore, it seems that the Defense Council is the one presenting the documents without propounding any question to this witness.
[1:30:22] Highly improper, Your Honor, please.
[1:30:24] Highly improper.
[1:30:25] Your Honor, please.
[1:30:26] Again, I don't want to put the lawyer on the spot, but that is highly improper.
[1:30:30] Ask questions.
[1:30:31] Your Honor, I did ask questions.
[1:30:32] No, there was no question.
[1:30:33] Can we ask that the transcript be read back?
[1:30:35] Council, kindly proceed.
[1:30:36] Thank you.
[1:30:37] Council for the prosecutors, with understanding that Mr. Calilong is not testifying as to the truth of whatever
[1:30:42] Council asked him or what he read, because clearly he's not comfortable.
[1:30:44] He's not allowed to present your evidence.
[1:30:45] He's not allowed to present your evidence.
[1:30:46] Two documents, no question yet.
[1:30:47] Highly improper, Your Honor, please.
[1:30:48] Again, I don't want to put the lawyer on the spot, but that is highly improper.
[1:30:49] Ask questions.
[1:30:50] Your Honor, I did ask questions.
[1:30:51] No, there was no question.
[1:30:52] Council.
[1:30:53] Can we ask that the transcript be read back?
[1:30:54] Council kindly proceed.
[1:30:55] Thank you.
[1:30:56] Council for the prosecutors, with understanding that Mr. Calilong is not testifying as to the truth of whatever
[1:31:03] Council asked him or what he read, because clearly he's not competent.
[1:31:06] Agreed.
[1:31:07] To testify as to the truth of what is contained in the Articles of Partnership.
[1:31:10] However, as to the fact that he read it and saw it, up to that extent.
[1:31:14] And the senator judges are so advised as well.
[1:31:16] So, you may proceed, sir.
[1:31:17] Thank you, sir.
[1:31:18] And I am on cross, Your Honor.
[1:31:19] Thank you.
[1:31:20] Sir, under the words about us, it says,
[1:31:26] MaxCore InterVentures has been established as a one-stop source of different products and services intended for both government and private institutions.
[1:31:36] Its company tagline, Innovation Without Boundaries, stands true testament to provide customers with quality merchandise.
[1:31:45] From the simplest to the most sophisticated ones at very affordable prices.
[1:31:50] 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.
[1:32:00] It envisions to evolve into excellence amidst the competitive pace of information technology.
[1:32:07] You see that, sir?
[1:32:08] Yes, sir.
[1:32:09] Sir, now I'm showing you another screenshot of the website of this MaxCore InterVentures Co.
[1:32:15] You confirm that I'm also flashing this for the ease of the court.
[1:32:23] Sir?
[1:32:56] At this point, Your Honor, please, allowed.
[1:33:00] The prosecution is allowed.
[1:33:02] Counsel for the prosecutor is recognized.
[1:33:04] Your Honor, not by way of an objection, but a manifestation, Your Honor, please.
[1:33:11] Your Honor, this is—
[1:33:12] Wait, wait, wait.
[1:33:13] Before that, I would like to object to your manifestation.
[1:33:15] Your Honor, there's no objection.
[1:33:17] Why is the prosecutor allowed to manifest during my cross-examination?
[1:33:22] Your Honor.
[1:33:23] Counsel correspondent, kindly wait for the presiding officer to recognize you.
[1:33:26] Thank you, Your Honor.
[1:33:27] What is the desire of the counsel for the prosecutors to make a—
[1:33:30] I would like to put into record the simple fact your Honor, please.
[1:33:34] That basis has not yet been laid as to the presentation of these documents.
[1:33:39] He presented articles of partnership and screenshots of websites without saying who took these screenshots
[1:33:47] or who, from where did the defense get the articles of partnership.
[1:33:55] That is only by way of manifestation.
[1:33:57] No need for the court to rule on that, Your Honor, please.
[1:33:59] Noted.
[1:34:00] Earlier ruling of the presiding officer stands.
[1:34:02] Counsel may proceed.
[1:34:03] Your Honor, may I respond?
[1:34:05] No need, Counsel.
[1:34:06] It was not an objection.
[1:34:07] Please proceed with your cross.
[1:34:09] Thank you, Your Honor.
[1:34:13] May I also state a manifestation, Your Honor?
[1:34:20] Your Honor, the basis of the defense was laid—
[1:34:23] For the record, the Chair will allow it just this once, please.
[1:34:27] Thank you, Your Honor.
[1:34:28] The basis of the defense was laid when we asked him whether he testified that he was—
[1:34:36] he got his training as an expert witness from MaxCorp Inverventures.
[1:34:42] Counsel, please proceed.
[1:34:45] Thank you, Your Honor.
[1:34:46] Sir, could you take a look at this?
[1:34:48] Under the words, our products, the products seen there are office supplies and equipment,
[1:34:55] ICT equipment software and hardware, investigative equipment hardware and software,
[1:35:02] emergency response software, and CCTVs.
[1:35:05] Do you see that?
[1:35:06] Yes.
[1:35:07] Thank you.
[1:35:08] Mr. Kalilong, are you a lawyer?
[1:35:12] No, sir.
[1:35:14] Yesterday, you testified that you signed the Affidavit of Investigation dated February 10,
[1:35:20] 2025.
[1:35:21] Yes, sir.
[1:35:24] Your Honor, may I request a copy from the prosecution?
[1:35:29] I think it is Exhibit P-4-3 in series.
[1:35:32] P-4-3 in series.
[1:35:38] Your Honor, please.
[1:35:40] Your Honor, please.
[1:35:41] Manifestation.
[1:35:42] The witness, number one, mentioned the Affidavit of Investigation.
[1:35:49] But that the witness did not identify the documents.
[1:35:53] So for the record, Your Honor, please, that document is not yet presented in courts as a documentary evidence, Your Honor, please.
[1:36:01] So highly improper for the defense to elicit that document through this witness, precisely because this witness did not yet identify the Affidavit of Investigation.
[1:36:14] Your Honor, please.
[1:36:15] Which exhibit is this?
[1:36:17] I believe he did, Counsel, but which exhibit is this?
[1:36:20] Exhibit P-4-3 to Exhibit P-4-3 BB, Your Honor.
[1:36:26] Your Honor, please.
[1:36:27] 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.
[1:36:35] So highly improper, as much as we want to accommodate the defense.
[1:36:38] So who is the signatory in that document?
[1:36:42] Is it…
[1:36:43] Your Honor, Mr. Kalilong is a signatory to that document.
[1:36:49] Is one of the signatories?
[1:36:55] Yes.
[1:36:57] Is one of the signatories.
[1:36:59] But the Counsel for Prosecutors is correct.
[1:37:02] This document has not yet been identified by any of the witness for the Counsel for the Prosecutors.
[1:37:09] 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.
[1:37:20] All right, Your Honor.
[1:37:21] Kindly proceed, Counsel.
[1:37:22] You mentioned an Affidavit of Investigation, correct?
[1:37:26] Yes, sir.
[1:37:28] And this Affidavit of Investigation, you sent a copy to the House of Representatives Committee on Justice.
[1:37:38] Yes, sir.
[1:37:40] You identified it during the House Committee hearings on April 29, 2025.
[1:37:47] Yes, sir.
[1:37:50] I'm showing you now an Affidavit of Investigation.
[1:37:53] This is marked as Exhibit D-4-46 in series, Your Honor.
[1:38:02] D-4-46 in series.
[1:38:08] Is there a counterpart marking from the Counsel for Prosecutors?
[1:38:12] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:38:13] This is P-1, P-4-3 to P-4-3BB.
[1:38:19] Thank you.
[1:38:22] For the record.
[1:38:23] This Affidavit of Investigation has appendages, correct?
[1:38:28] Annexes.
[1:38:29] Yes, sir.
[1:38:30] And it forms a whole, correct?
[1:38:32] Yes, sir.
[1:38:34] Okay.
[1:38:36] Sir, do you confirm that you signed this?
[1:38:40] I'm one of the signatories, sir.
[1:38:43] Do you want me to have my identify and signatories?
[1:38:45] Your Honor, do you have...
[1:38:53] Here, sir.
[1:38:57] I withdraw, Your Honor.
[1:39:03] Apart from this Affidavit of Investigation dated February 10, are you aware if there is
[1:39:11] another Affidavit of Investigation executed by the NBI represented by the Cybercrime Division
[1:39:16] in relation to this case?
[1:39:18] This is the only one that is submitted, sir.
[1:39:21] No.
[1:39:22] Executed.
[1:39:23] Signed.
[1:39:24] My question is...
[1:39:25] The defense cannot argue with the witness, Your Honor, please.
[1:39:28] The witness would know how to respond, Counsel.
[1:39:30] If he is not responsive to your question, do not argue with the witness.
[1:39:35] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:39:36] Can I rephrase?
[1:39:38] Apart from this Affidavit of Investigation, are you aware if there is any other Affidavit
[1:39:44] of Investigation signed by the NBI represented by the Cybercrime?
[1:39:49] Okay.
[1:39:50] In that juncture, I have to object.
[1:39:52] Vague, Your Honor.
[1:39:53] Affidavit of Investigation signed by the NBI.
[1:39:54] Related to this case, Your Honor.
[1:39:55] There could be thousands of documents.
[1:39:57] Related to this case.
[1:39:58] If the witness knows, which is my answer?
[1:40:03] Is there any other Affidavit of Investigation executed by the NBI Cybercrime in relation
[1:40:13] to this case, witness?
[1:40:14] As far as I remember, sir, this is the final Affidavit of Investigation, sir.
[1:40:20] Final Affidavit.
[1:40:22] Are you sure, Agent?
[1:40:23] Let me remind you that you are under oath.
[1:40:25] Yes, sir.
[1:40:26] I have with me a certification, a DOJ certification executed by JV Lawrence B. Bandung.
[1:40:36] Senior Assistant State Prosecutor JV Bandung.
[1:40:42] For the record, Your Honor, this is Exhibit D-4-29 for the defense.
[1:40:47] Do you see this, sir?
[1:40:49] Yes, sir.
[1:40:51] This certification dated February 5, 2025 states, and I quote, the referral, the complaint
[1:40:59] referral, does not contain all the necessary evidence to prove the essential elements of
[1:41:06] the crime.
[1:41:08] Therefore, it is recommended that the same be first referred for case buildup.
[1:41:14] Do you see that?
[1:41:15] Yes, sir.
[1:41:17] Now, below that, in the second page, below that, under the word notes.
[1:41:25] Number one, therefore, states, and I quote, that there is no...
[1:41:29] May I have this flashed on the screen, please?
[1:41:33] For the ease of the court, so the honorable court can follow.
[1:41:39] Under notes again, sir.
[1:41:43] For the record, Your Honor, we are flashing the certification on the screen.
[1:41:50] Under notes, sir, number one, therefore, states, and I quote,
[1:41:59] There is no affidavit of the persons who recorded the video entitled,
[1:42:04] VP November 23 Press Con at Batasan, through open broadcast software OBS,
[1:42:10] and in turn, stored it in a digital video disc.
[1:42:13] Do you see that, sir?
[1:42:14] Yes, sir.
[1:42:16] Let's go to page two.
[1:42:18] On paragraph seven, it states, and I quote,
[1:42:24] One of the elements of the crime of grave threats is that the offender threatens another
[1:42:29] with infliction upon the latter's person, honor, or property,
[1:42:33] or upon that of the latter's family of any wrong amounting to any crime.
[1:42:39] In the instant complaint, only the NBI executed an affidavit,
[1:42:45] and there was no participation on the part of the offended parties, as it appears.
[1:42:50] NBI is not the offended party for the crime of grave threats.
[1:42:54] Do you see that?
[1:42:55] Yes, sir.
[1:42:57] Above this, in paragraph six, it states that, and I quote,
[1:43:03] Only the minutes of the meeting with several personalities and representatives from various media outfits were submitted,
[1:43:11] and although the minutes were signed, there was no individual affidavit executed regarding the contents of said minutes.
[1:43:20] Do you see that, sir?
[1:43:21] Yes, sir.
[1:43:22] On paragraph five, it states that, and I quote,
[1:43:25] The affidavit of one Patria Morales mentioned that she stored these footages in a USB and submitted it to the NBI.
[1:43:35] However, there was no USB attached to the complaint, only a DVD was attached.
[1:43:40] There was no detail regarding the contents of this DVD.
[1:43:43] Do you see that, sir?
[1:43:45] Yes.
[1:43:46] On paragraph four, it states, and I quote,
[1:43:48] Annex L did not indicate who made such TSN.
[1:43:53] There was also no affidavit of the person who made the TSN.
[1:43:57] Do you see that?
[1:43:58] Yes, sir.
[1:43:59] In paragraph three, it states that, and I quote,
[1:44:01] Annex's I and K, open parenthesis DVDs with markings NBI-CNN-C-24-12-43-6-2 and NBI-CCN-C-24-12-436-2, close parenthesis,
[1:44:22] were not accompanied by an affidavit of the record and TSN, also affidavit of the one who will execute the TSN.
[1:44:30] Yes, sir.
[1:44:32] On paragraph two, it states, and I quote,
[1:44:34] The press briefing conducted on October 18 was not recorded and or stored in the DVD, no video submitted,
[1:44:42] and there was no TSN of the said briefing and the necessary affidavit of the person taking the CSN.
[1:44:50] Yes, sir.
[1:44:52] So, now, is your memory refreshed, sir? Did the DOJ send back the original affidavit of investigation to the NBI?
[1:45:19] Yes, sir.
[1:45:20] Thank you.
[1:45:23] Now, you are aware that on February 11, 2025, the NBI, through its then director, retired judge Jaime B. Santiago,
[1:45:34] wrote to the Office of the Prosecutor General submitting a revised affidavit of investigation.
[1:45:40] Yes, sir.
[1:45:42] This is your affidavit of investigation dated February 10, right? February 10, 2025.
[1:45:56] So, wait, wait, wait, wait. So, objection to the order.
[1:46:00] The defense said that this is your affidavit, February, dated February 10.
[1:46:09] Without showing any document to the witness.
[1:46:14] I'm asking, sir.
[1:46:15] How could the witness answer to a question that he is not, that is not accompanied with a document?
[1:46:23] That should be the basis for the question.
[1:46:25] And this is your affidavit. I will reform your honor.
[1:46:28] Kindly reform, counsel.
[1:46:29] Thank you, your honor.
[1:46:30] This is your affidavit dated February 10, 2024, correct?
[1:46:39] Please check. Sorry, sir.
[1:47:43] Can I make a manifestation, your honor, please?
[1:47:45] Your honor, can we object again to this manifestation?
[1:47:47] Manifestation.
[1:47:48] I will not even object. I'm being generous. Your honor.
[1:47:51] Counsel, let's wait for the witness to review it. It's a voluminous document.
[1:47:57] 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 the proper time.
[1:48:06] Is this the amended affidavit of investigation?
[1:48:28] This is a photocopy of the affidavit, sir.
[1:48:32] Yes, sir.
[1:48:33] This is the amended one.
[1:48:34] Yes, sir.
[1:48:36] The photocopy, sir.
[1:48:37] Thank you.
[1:48:38] With the permission of counsel, Mr. Galilong, what was the date of the first affidavit you submitted that was returned by the DOJ to the NBI?
[1:48:47] As far as I remember, January 30. When the certification was issued, we complied with the requirements and submitted it on February 10.
[1:49:02] Have you identified that affidavit of investigation dated January 30 in yesterday's proceedings? No? Yes or no?
[1:49:10] Sir?
[1:49:12] Have you identified the January 30?
[1:49:15] The one that I identified, Your Honor, is the authentication, Your Honor.
[1:49:19] Not the affidavit of investigation. So you have not done so?
[1:49:22] Yes, sir.
[1:49:23] This one, you have not done so too?
[1:49:26] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:49:27] For the record, counsel, you may proceed.
[1:49:30] I'm showing you now a letter dated January 30 from the former NBI director Jaime Sanchago.
[1:49:54] Now, I have to object, Your Honor, please.
[1:49:56] You know, the defense has been confronting this witness with documents, even without marking and identifying the source of these documents.
[1:50:05] Your Honor, that's...
[1:50:06] It's like plucking out of thin air a document, presenting them the document to the witness and withdrawing the document.
[1:50:12] Your Honor, that's up to the...
[1:50:14] Even introducing these pieces of evidence, these pieces of exhibits into evidence.
[1:50:19] So my question is, through the presiding officer, is the defense not entering these documents into evidence, Your Honor, please?
[1:50:33] They can do so at the proper time, counsel, but insofar 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.
[1:50:44] Now, it seems that there are two affidavits.
[1:50:48] I would like to make...
[1:50:49] Both of which have not yet been presented.
[1:50:51] One will be presented, I think, by Attorney Lotok.
[1:50:54] Your Honor, for the record...
[1:50:55] The first one, we're not aware of it.
[1:50:56] Is that correct, counsel for the respondent?
[1:51:00] Your Honor, he just identified a copy of the affidavit of investigation.
[1:51:05] Dated June, January 30?
[1:51:07] February...
[1:51:09] April 10, 2025.
[1:51:11] April...
[1:51:12] February 10.
[1:51:13] Sorry, February 10.
[1:51:14] February 10, Your Honor, please.
[1:51:16] What about the first affidavit?
[1:51:17] The witness said he had the first affidavit.
[1:51:19] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:51:20] Not yet.
[1:51:21] Not yet?
[1:51:22] Yes.
[1:51:23] You only cited a January 30 letter...
[1:51:25] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:51:26] ...of the former NBI...
[1:51:27] Um...
[1:51:28] I cited, Your Honor, a certification by the DOJ returning an affidavit.
[1:51:35] And that is now the problem, Your Honor.
[1:51:37] In fact, even I am confused because the documents are not introduced into evidence by the defense.
[1:51:44] Counsel, please proceed and kindly help the court to be clarified regarding this matter.
[1:51:49] Thank you.
[1:51:50] You mentioned that you mentioned that you were aware that the then-director, retired Judge B. Sanciago, wrote to the office of the Prosecutor General submitting a revised affidavit of investigation on February 11, 2025.
[1:52:20] I am showing you now that letter dated February 11, 2025.
[1:52:29] For the record, this is Exhibit D-4-43.
[1:52:38] Of...
[1:52:39] For the defense.
[1:52:40] Of...
[1:52:41] For the defense.
[1:52:42] Uh...
[1:52:43] You mean, uh...
[1:52:44] Pre-marked?
[1:52:45] Pre-marked.
[1:52:46] Because when you say marked as evidence for the defense, it's not yet.
[1:52:53] Your turn has...
[1:52:54] I mean...
[1:52:55] You have yet to present the, uh...
[1:52:56] Your Exhibit.
[1:52:57] So, uh...
[1:52:58] It should be pre-marked, Your Honor, please.
[1:52:59] No, it's pre-marked.
[1:53:00] And, um...
[1:53:01] I believe, um...
[1:53:02] Both the defense and the...
[1:53:03] Rather, the respondent of the prosecution also have common pieces of evidence which you decided during pre-trial.
[1:53:08] This is not one of them.
[1:53:09] Which you decided during pre-trial to be marked separately.
[1:53:11] One of those, uh...
[1:53:12] Few, uh...
[1:53:13] Common piece of evidence.
[1:53:14] Yes, there are a few.
[1:53:15] Sir?
[1:53:17] Please proceed, counsel, for the respondent.
[1:53:19] Witness the answer.
[1:53:20] There...
[1:53:21] There is a signature above the name Judge Jaime B. Santiago.
[1:53:24] Whose signature is that?
[1:53:26] Your Honor, now, I would like to object to the relevance.
[1:53:29] A letter is being, uh...
[1:53:31] The witness is being confronted with a letter coming from, uh...
[1:53:35] The former NBI director, Judge Jaime B. Santiago.
[1:53:39] And this witness is now being asked to identify whose signature is that.
[1:53:43] That's obvious.
[1:53:44] 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.
[1:53:51] In the meantime, I'll allow it kindly show the connection, counsel.
[1:53:53] Thank you.
[1:53:54] Sir?
[1:53:59] Whose signature is this?
[1:54:00] As far as I remember, signature of Director Sanchago, sir.
[1:54:14] Thank you.
[1:54:19] On the last line of the letter, on the fourth page, sir, please take a look.
[1:54:25] Last line.
[1:54:28] It says, and I quote,
[1:54:32] To support our recommendations attached herein is the revised affidavit of investigation, including its attachments.
[1:54:40] Did you see that, Agent?
[1:54:42] Yes, sir.
[1:54:47] Thank you.
[1:54:48] And you confirmed that the November...
[1:54:51] The former NBI director, Jaime Sanchago, wrote to the Prosecutor General, Richard Anthony de Fadulion,
[1:54:59] a letter dated February, January 30, 2025.
[1:55:06] This is one of the documents that you submitted to the Committee on Justice, correct?
[1:55:12] Where's...
[1:55:14] Okay, I will show you now.
[1:55:15] May I have this flashed on the screen?
[1:55:51] Do you recall this document?
[1:55:52] Yes, sir.
[1:55:55] Yes.
[1:56:02] January 30, 2025 is a date earlier than February 10, 2025, correct?
[1:56:08] Yes.
[1:56:09] Your Honor...
[1:56:11] That's an answer, Your Honor.
[1:56:13] Your Honor, the witness being asked which...
[1:56:15] Your Honor, ask an answer.
[1:56:17] First.
[1:56:19] Relevance, Your Honor.
[1:56:20] Relevance.
[1:56:21] Counsel, if the witness knows and the counsel for respondent will be given the latitude to test the credibility, accuracy,
[1:56:29] and completeness of the testimony of the witness, but we note your continuing objection,
[1:56:36] because you already sound frustrated, counsel, in regard to this line of questioning by the counsel for respondent.
[1:56:41] I'm very patient.
[1:56:42] I'm very patient.
[1:56:43] The counsel for respondent may proceed.
[1:56:46] Is this the answer?
[1:56:47] Thank you.
[1:56:49] The earlier...
[1:56:50] He already answered, Your Honor.
[1:56:51] Thank you.
[1:56:52] You earlier confirmed that there was actually a certification dated February 5, 2025.
[1:57:00] Objection on misleading.
[1:57:01] I don't remember this witness...
[1:57:02] I have no question, Your Honor.
[1:57:05] Let the counsel finish with this question, counsel.
[1:57:08] He even read it, Your Honor.
[1:57:12] You likewise confirmed that in that said certification dated February 5, 2025, the earlier affidavit of investigation were subject to seven recommendations.
[1:57:22] And you confirmed that you read that.
[1:57:25] Objection.
[1:57:26] Objection.
[1:57:27] Misleading, Your Honor, please.
[1:57:28] Now the counsel mentioned seven grounds, seven grounds.
[1:57:33] And I don't remember this witness uttering the term seven grounds.
[1:57:38] What I do remember, Your Honor, please, is that this witness was confronted with a certification, a letter, whatever.
[1:57:44] But now this, the counsel is now asking this witness to confirm the contents, the contents of those certifications or letters misleading.
[1:57:55] That's not allowed during cross.
[1:57:57] The counsel is now assuming facts that have yet to be established.
[1:58:01] Can I repeat that?
[1:58:02] This witness was only confronted with certifications, letters, dated this, dated that.
[1:58:08] And now, the counsel now asking, do you confirm?
[1:58:09] Your Honor, please.
[1:58:10] He's now testifying.
[1:58:11] Do you confirm, right?
[1:58:12] Wait, wait.
[1:58:13] Let me finish.
[1:58:14] Now he is asking this witness to confirm that in that letter, there are seven grounds.
[1:58:19] As if this witness uttered those words.
[1:58:22] The ground is misleading, definition.
[1:58:25] This counsel is assuming facts that have yet to be established through this witness, Your Honor, please.
[1:58:30] Counsel, again, the witness is not a newbie.
[1:58:32] 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.
[1:58:41] And thus far, he has responded based on his knowledge of these documents.
[1:58:46] Chair will allow it.
[1:58:47] Thank you.
[1:58:48] Witness may answer.
[1:58:53] Sir.
[1:58:54] Can you repeat the question, counsel?
[1:58:55] You confirmed that there was a certification dated February 5, 2025.
[1:58:59] You likewise confirmed that in said certification…
[1:59:02] Your Honor, Your Honor, compound question, compound question.
[1:59:04] There's no question.
[1:59:05] Wait, wait.
[1:59:06] Kindly wait for the presiding officer to recognize you before answering.
[1:59:10] Yes, Your Honor.
[1:59:11] Yes.
[1:59:12] Please, counsel for the prosecutors, please finish your objection.
[1:59:15] Thank you so much.
[1:59:17] Can I?
[1:59:19] Yes, please proceed, counsel.
[1:59:20] Compound questions.
[1:59:21] The witness is now being confronted with two successive questions without allowing this witness to answer the first question.
[1:59:30] What makes a compound question…
[1:59:32] No need to lecture, counsel.
[1:59:33] Counsel for Respondent, please reform.
[1:59:34] Your Honor, I had no question.
[1:59:36] He already…
[1:59:38] I had no question yet.
[1:59:39] He already…
[1:59:40] I had no question yet.
[1:59:41] Kindly, kindly proceed with your question.
[1:59:42] Thank you, Your Honor.
[1:59:43] The earlier affidavit of investigation was subject to seven recommendations from the DOJ for case buildup.
[1:59:51] Objection vague.
[1:59:52] The earlier investigation, which investigation is the counsel referring to?
[1:59:55] Objection vague.
[1:59:56] We already…
[1:59:57] We already established, Your Honor, there was an earlier one.
[2:00:00] Overruled.
[2:00:01] Overruled.
[2:00:02] Again, the witness is competent enough to testify.
[2:00:04] Overruled.
[2:00:05] Kindly, kindly proceed with your question, counsel.
[2:00:07] Yes.
[2:00:08] In the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, that you identified, despite DOJ's recommendation number six that you earlier read…
[2:00:23] Objection, Your Honor.
[2:00:25] Objection.
[2:00:26] Sir, Your Honor, I am not yet finished.
[2:00:27] If the ground…
[2:00:28] Can we wait for the counsel to finish with this question, counsel, please?
[2:00:31] Okay, Your Honor.
[2:00:32] The question…
[2:00:34] Sir, there were still no affidavits of the journalists from the media outlets in your affidavit of investigation dated February 10.
[2:00:46] Witness, not under first objection or misleading.
[2:00:50] Why is it misleading, counsel?
[2:00:52] The counsel said the earlier affidavit of investigation.
[2:00:57] In fact, Your Honor, please, he referred to the February 10 investigation.
[2:01:00] That's not the earlier investigation.
[2:01:02] That is the final affidavit of investigation submitted to the DOJ.
[2:01:08] Misleading.
[2:01:09] Misleading, Your Honor.
[2:01:10] Your Honor.
[2:01:11] The presiding officer will ask the question.
[2:01:13] Mr. Witness, did you attach the affidavits of the two witnesses that viewed the video of the Vice President in the February 10 affidavit?
[2:01:24] Yes, sir.
[2:01:26] Let me qualify my answer in number six, sir.
[2:01:29] You may do so.
[2:01:30] In number six, sir, the DOJ requested an affidavit to be executed regarding the content of the minutes.
[2:01:37] I executed an affidavit attesting to those minutes, sir, which I am part of the interview, sir.
[2:01:45] What was it attached to the February 10 affidavit?
[2:01:47] Yes, sir.
[2:01:48] Counsel for the respondent, Your Witness.
[2:01:51] Thank you.
[2:01:54] Sir, but there are no affidavits of the journalists from the media outlets, correct?
[2:02:03] My question is not found there, Your Honor.
[2:02:05] Oh, Your Honor, please.
[2:02:06] My question is not found there.
[2:02:07] Okay, wait, wait, wait.
[2:02:08] The counsel is confronting the witness with a document and he asked, he propounded questions.
[2:02:14] And then he asked another question and he took the document away.
[2:02:18] What's the purpose of that objection, Your Honor?
[2:02:21] My question is plain, Your Honor.
[2:02:23] Let the witness peruse the document you presented him with.
[2:02:27] Let him answer that through a document.
[2:02:29] My question is plain, Your Honor.
[2:02:30] Your Honor, a witness should be allowed to peruse the document that he was confronted with.
[2:02:35] Counsel, please, please.
[2:02:37] Witness, I think the witness understood the question.
[2:02:41] Mr. Kalilong, you may answer if you understand the question.
[2:02:45] I will repeat the question.
[2:02:47] Kindly repeat, Counsel.
[2:02:48] Thank Your Honor.
[2:02:49] There is still no affidavits of the journalists from media outlets appended on your revised affidavit of investigation, sir.
[2:02:59] May I qualify for my answer, sir?
[2:03:01] No, sir.
[2:03:02] Just answer a yes or no.
[2:03:03] Kindly look at the document presented to you.
[2:03:05] Unredirect, Counsel can make you explain the disparity, if any.
[2:03:10] The question is simple.
[2:03:15] Are the affidavits attached to the affidavit of investigation?
[2:03:19] May I see the question number six?
[2:04:03] Your Honor, my question does not relate to the question number six.
[2:04:06] Kindly show the witness counsel.
[2:04:08] I will enable him to give an intelligent answer to your question.
[2:04:13] Can we please slash certification and put it to paragraph number six.
[2:04:20] The paragraph number six states that only the minutes of meeting with several personalities and representative from various media outfits were submitted.
[2:04:31] Although the minutes were signed, there were no individual affidavit executed regarding to the content of the minutes.
[2:04:38] Okay, sir.
[2:04:39] I have no question.
[2:04:40] So the answer is the affidavits are not attached?
[2:04:42] I have executed an affidavit, sir.
[2:04:44] No, the affidavits of the two journalists are not attached.
[2:04:46] I think that's the only question of the counsel for the respondents.
[2:04:48] Thank you.
[2:04:49] Instead, sir, as you confirmed, what you appended to the affidavit of investigation are affidavits of NBI agents, correct?
[2:05:06] Yes, sir.
[2:05:07] Not the journalists who were present during the November 23, 24 press conference.
[2:05:14] The one who interviewed, sir.
[2:05:15] Yeah, the one who interviewed.
[2:05:18] Not the journalists.
[2:05:19] Yes, sir.
[2:05:20] Ash can answer, Your Honor.
[2:05:21] Sir, in the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025 that you identified, despite DOJ's recommendation number seven.
[2:05:39] Can we show again DOJ recommendation number seven?
[2:05:42] In the certification dated February 5, 2025.
[2:05:47] It is still the NBI cybercrime division that is the complainant.
[2:05:53] I believe this is answered on the letter of the director, sir.
[2:06:01] Sir, my answer is answerable, but yes or no.
[2:06:03] The complainant is still the NBI cybercrime division.
[2:06:07] Yes, sir.
[2:06:09] Thank you.
[2:06:12] The supposed offended parties in this case would be President Bongbong Marcos.
[2:06:16] Yes, sir.
[2:06:17] The First Lady Lisa Marcos.
[2:06:20] Yes, sir.
[2:06:21] The former Speaker of the House Martin Romualdez.
[2:06:23] Yes, sir.
[2:06:24] Did President Marcos appear before the NBI during its investigation?
[2:06:29] No, sir.
[2:06:31] Did the First Lady Lisa Marcos appear before the NBI during its investigation?
[2:06:37] No, sir.
[2:06:38] Did the former Speaker Martin Romualdez appear before the NBI during its investigation?
[2:06:43] No, sir.
[2:06:45] Sir, I am showing you again for the record the affidavit investigation.
[2:06:51] Sir, did you attach to that affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025 an affidavit of the President Marcos?
[2:07:00] Only the responses, sir.
[2:07:03] Sir, listen to my question.
[2:07:05] That's the answer.
[2:07:06] Your Honor, he did not answer, so I am entitled to ask.
[2:07:09] That's the answer.
[2:07:10] Not responsive.
[2:07:11] The question was, Mr. Witness, did you attach the affidavit of President Marcos to the February 10 affidavit?
[2:07:18] No, sir.
[2:07:19] Did you attach an affidavit of the First Lady Lisa Marcos on your affidavit?
[2:07:25] No, sir.
[2:07:26] Did you attach an affidavit of former Speaker Martin Romualdez on your affidavit of investigation?
[2:07:34] No, sir.
[2:07:35] 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?
[2:07:48] You made an statement?
[2:07:50] No, sir.
[2:07:51] My question is, if you know, did the President file any criminal complaint against the Vice President?
[2:07:58] I have no personal knowledge.
[2:08:00] Did the First Lady Lisa Araneta Marcos file any criminal complaint against VP Sarah?
[2:08:04] I have no personal knowledge.
[2:08:06] How about the Speaker Martin Romualdez?
[2:08:08] Did he file any criminal complaint against VP Sarah as a result of the November 23, 2024 online press conference?
[2:08:16] I have no personal knowledge.
[2:08:17] Did you really investigate this case?
[2:08:21] Oh, you have to argument that the President, Your Honor, please.
[2:08:23] Did you really investigate this question?
[2:08:25] How about the Speaker Martin Romualdez?
[2:08:28] In other words, sir, the alleged offended parties were not included as complainants in the case you filed with the Department of Justice?
[2:08:37] Yes, sir.
[2:08:39] Thank you.
[2:08:40] Please.
[2:08:41] And despite the fact that the NBI Cybercrime Division did not comply with recommendations No. 6 and No. 7 in the certification date, February 5, 2026,
[2:08:51] it nevertheless filed the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025 that you identified today.
[2:09:00] Can I qualify my answer, sir?
[2:09:03] No, sir.
[2:09:04] Just answer with yes or no.
[2:09:06] Witness may be allowed to answer according to how he wishes to explain.
[2:09:11] You may proceed, Mr. Witness, to answer.
[2:09:14] Yes, sir.
[2:09:15] Thank you, Your Honor.
[2:09:16] For this case, we complied with the requirements of the DOJ.
[2:09:20] That's why we secured a second certification wherein our document is enough for preliminary investigation, sir.
[2:09:29] Okay.
[2:09:30] Thank you.
[2:09:31] And this certification is a certification dated February 5, 2025.
[2:09:41] Correct?
[2:09:44] This is not the new certification, sir.
[2:09:47] Oh, sorry, sir.
[2:09:54] Apologies, Your Honor.
[2:09:55] February 11.
[2:09:57] Yes, sir.
[2:09:59] This was also executed by Senior Assistant State Prosecutor J.V. Lawrence B. Bandong.
[2:10:07] Correct?
[2:10:08] Yes, sir.
[2:10:09] Now, let's discuss the nature of the investigation you conducted.
[2:10:21] 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.
[2:10:36] Motu proprio indirected, sir.
[2:10:38] Okay.
[2:10:39] Do you understand what you just said, sir?
[2:10:44] Oh, oh.
[2:10:45] Can I object to that, Your Honor, please?
[2:10:47] I'm asking, sir.
[2:10:48] It makes sense, sir.
[2:10:49] Argumentative counsel.
[2:10:50] Move on.
[2:10:51] Move on.
[2:10:52] Mutu proprio, sir, means?
[2:10:53] Oh, no.
[2:10:55] Objectional.
[2:10:56] You cannot lecture counsel.
[2:10:57] This is cross-examination.
[2:10:58] Sir, you mentioned mutu proprio.
[2:11:00] What does it mean?
[2:11:01] Even without a complainant, we started the investigation, sir.
[2:11:06] Are you sure, sir?
[2:11:07] Oh, argumentative.
[2:11:08] Are you sure, sir?
[2:11:09] Move on, counsel.
[2:11:10] Are you sure, sir?
[2:11:11] How about direct investigation?
[2:11:21] What does that mean?
[2:11:22] Your Honor.
[2:11:23] Okay.
[2:11:25] Nevermind.
[2:11:26] Directed investigation.
[2:11:27] What does that mean?
[2:11:28] There is a instruction from above, sir.
[2:11:30] From?
[2:11:31] Above.
[2:11:32] Above.
[2:11:33] What does above mean?
[2:11:35] It may be the DOJ or the higher.
[2:11:39] Higher.
[2:11:40] What's higher than the DOJ?
[2:11:41] Based on that, it's only the DOJ, sir.
[2:11:45] Based on that.
[2:11:46] You said above the DOJ, sir.
[2:11:48] No, sir.
[2:11:49] Above the NBI, sir.
[2:11:50] Sir, you said above.
[2:11:51] May I ask for a reading?
[2:11:53] Argumentative.
[2:11:54] Counsel, counsel, again, I would have to sustain the objection.
[2:11:57] It is argumentative.
[2:11:58] I heard the answer.
[2:11:59] He meant as a general term above, but referring apparently to only the DOJ in this particular
[2:12:07] instance.
[2:12:08] We submit, Your Honor.
[2:12:09] Please proceed.
[2:12:10] I know that the NBI cyber crime division is the complainant in the case against the
[2:12:14] Vice President and that the DOJ filed this with the DOJ.
[2:12:20] Objection.
[2:12:21] Compound, Your Honor.
[2:12:22] That's a compound question.
[2:12:23] No question, Your Honor.
[2:12:24] That was just a statement.
[2:12:25] Oh, exactly.
[2:12:26] Your Honor.
[2:12:27] Laying the basis for a question.
[2:12:28] Lead.
[2:12:29] Go to your question, counsel.
[2:12:30] Sir, the NBI, of course you're from the NBI, is under the Department of Justice.
[2:12:36] Yes, sir.
[2:12:37] Your Honor, we can take judicial notice of that.
[2:12:39] Your Honor.
[2:12:40] I'm on cross, Your Honor.
[2:12:42] I know, but sir, there are things that may not be discussed.
[2:12:44] Your Honor, please.
[2:12:45] Can I, Your Honor?
[2:12:46] Your Honor, please.
[2:12:47] Counsel, let's give him some latitude.
[2:12:48] Although we can take judicial notice of that, it's part of his cross-examination.
[2:12:55] Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
[2:12:56] The Secretary of Justice is meanwhile the head of the DOJ, correct?
[2:13:01] Yes, sir.
[2:13:02] The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over the NBI.
[2:13:07] Yes, but even though—
[2:13:10] No, no more questions.
[2:13:11] The witness is answering.
[2:13:12] Yes or no, Mr. Witness, if you know.
[2:13:14] Can you repeat, sir?
[2:13:16] Mr. Witness?
[2:13:17] The Secretary of Justice exercises control and supervision over the NBI.
[2:13:21] Yes or no?
[2:13:23] We are under, sir.
[2:13:24] But we're independent.
[2:13:27] So you do not know.
[2:13:29] Oh, Your Honor, that's argumentative.
[2:13:31] So you do not know?
[2:13:32] Sir, are you—
[2:13:33] All right, Your Honor.
[2:13:34] Are you aware of Book 4, Chapter 8, Supervision and Control of the Admin Code?
[2:13:41] Your Honor.
[2:13:42] Section 39.
[2:13:43] Your Honor, I have no question yet.
[2:13:44] Please.
[2:13:45] Yeah.
[2:13:46] Council for the Prosecutor.
[2:13:47] Let the Council for the Respondent finish his question.
[2:13:49] Yes, sir.
[2:13:50] Section 39 thereof.
[2:13:51] Secretary's authority.
[2:13:53] The Secretary shall have the supervision and control over the Bureau's offices and agencies under him.
[2:14:00] Supervision and control.
[2:14:02] So, sir, my question is this.
[2:14:03] Is the NBI, the National Bureau of Investigation, a bureau under the Department of Justice?
[2:14:14] Yes, sir.
[2:14:15] Thank you.
[2:14:16] And, sir, the President has control over all executive departments, correct?
[2:14:24] I believe so, sir.
[2:14:25] The DOJ is one of those executive departments, correct?
[2:14:31] Yes, sir.
[2:14:32] And the current President is Ferdinand Marcos Jr., correct?
[2:14:36] We agree to that.
[2:14:37] That's judicial notice.
[2:14:38] Your Honor, please.
[2:14:39] Yes or no.
[2:14:41] There's no other President.
[2:14:42] No, he answered already, Your Honor.
[2:14:43] Already Aston answered.
[2:14:45] The head of the executive branch is President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., correct?
[2:14:49] Yes, sir.
[2:14:50] The very same Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who you said was an offended party in the case against Vice President Duterte.
[2:14:59] Yes, sir.
[2:15:01] So, in other words, the NBI investigated and filed the complaint.
[2:15:06] The DOJ directed the investigation and will determine whether the case should proceed to court.
[2:15:13] And the alleged offended party, President Marcos, is the constitutional head of the executive branch exercising control over both the DOJ and the NBI.
[2:15:24] I would draw your Honor.
[2:15:25] I would draw your Honor.
[2:15:26] I would draw your Honor.
[2:15:27] I would draw your Honor.
[2:15:28] I would draw your Honor.
[2:15:29] It's even more compound question.
[2:15:31] Nothing to object to.
[2:15:32] Withdraw, Your Honor.
[2:15:33] Withdraw.
[2:15:34] Move on.
[2:15:35] Sir, you testified earlier that you investigated the Vice President in relation to the press briefing that she conducted on November 23, 2024.
[2:15:43] Yes, sir.
[2:15:44] This investigation by the NBI Cyber Crime Division was started after the conduct of the November 23, 2024 press briefing of the Vice President.
[2:15:56] Correct?
[2:15:57] Yes, sir.
[2:15:58] So, basically, to put it simply, the investigation was done after the supposed incident on November 23, 2024.
[2:16:05] The same day, sir.
[2:16:07] The same day, but after.
[2:16:08] Oh, Your Honor.
[2:16:09] The same day, then after.
[2:16:10] Same.
[2:16:11] Not responsive, Your Honor.
[2:16:12] How could we just clarify your question?
[2:16:14] Same day, same day.
[2:16:15] The investigation was done after, later then, the supposed incident on November 23, 2024.
[2:16:21] Yes, sir.
[2:16:22] Thank you.
[2:16:23] You mean to say later that day?
[2:16:25] Yes, Your Honor.
[2:16:26] Because how can you investigate something that hasn't happened yet?
[2:16:29] Correct, Your Honor.
[2:16:30] Please proceed.
[2:16:31] Sir, you're not one of the participants of the press conference on November 23, 2025, correct?
[2:16:38] Yes, sir.
[2:16:39] So, you do not have personal knowledge about what transpired during that press briefing, correct?
[2:16:45] It was live stream, sir.
[2:16:47] You did not watch that live stream, correct?
[2:16:50] In real time.
[2:16:51] Yes, sir.
[2:16:53] You only acquired knowledge about it when you started investigating later that day.
[2:16:59] Yes, sir.
[2:17:02] You also do not have personal knowledge of the alleged threats made by the Vice President
[2:17:05] during that press conference.
[2:17:07] Press briefing, sorry.
[2:17:09] After the press briefing, sir.
[2:17:10] After the press briefing, sir.
[2:17:11] You only acquired knowledge about it when you started investigating.
[2:17:16] Yes, sir.
[2:17:17] You also do not have personal knowledge of the alleged assassin that was allegedly hired by
[2:17:24] the Vice President.
[2:17:25] It came to my knowledge upon...
[2:17:29] Personal knowledge, sir?
[2:17:30] No, sir.
[2:17:31] No, sir.
[2:17:35] Now, during your testimony yesterday, you mentioned that during your investigation on
[2:17:39] the November 23, 2024 press briefing conducted by the Vice President, you preserved a copy
[2:17:45] of said press briefing through open source investigation, correct?
[2:17:49] Preserve a copy through open broadcast software.
[2:17:54] Okay.
[2:17:55] Thank you for the correction.
[2:17:57] One of the videos that you were able to preserve in relation to your investigation is the screen
[2:18:02] recording of the November 23, 2024 press briefing conducted by the Vice President, right?
[2:18:08] Yes, sir.
[2:18:09] Your Honor, may I move that the very same USB be unsealed and shown the...
[2:18:21] The prosecutors exhibit P-4-10 be unsealed and shown the witness.
[2:18:26] Council for the prosecutors, so instructed.
[2:18:33] Thank you, Your Honor.
[2:18:53] This is exhibit P-4-10, I believe.
[2:19:24] Your Honor, may I request that he unseal the USB and that it be allowed to be played.
[2:19:38] Which part, Council?
[2:19:40] Your Honor, we will play various parts of the... not the whole... for the... as the...
[2:19:47] That's what I was worried about.
[2:19:49] Yes, Your Honor.
[2:19:50] We understood by the faces of the honorable members of the court, so...
[2:19:54] So you will...
[2:19:56] We will just...
[2:19:57] Play parts...
[2:19:58] Yes, Your Honor.
[2:19:59] And you identified, I presume, the time stamp.
[2:20:02] Yes, we have, Your Honor.
[2:20:03] I will...
[2:20:04] I will get to that.
[2:20:05] Witness may open the seal.
[2:20:06] Thank you, Your Honor.
[2:20:08] And council for the prosecutors is instructed to accompany council, one of the councils for
[2:20:14] the respondent, in the tech booth to make sure that it's the same USB being presented.
[2:20:19] For the record, Your Honor, the witness is opening the prosecutions exhibit P-4-10, Your Honor.
[2:20:25] This is the video dated November 23, 2024.
[2:20:31] I hope and seal the flash drive, sir.
[2:20:37] Thank you, sir.
[2:20:38] Council this with understanding, okay, very much like yesterday, that this USB will again
[2:20:44] be sealed and signed by both parties.
[2:20:46] Yes, Your Honor.
[2:20:47] Your Honor, me request that this be played.
[2:20:51] Here, brother.
[2:20:54] Sorry.
[2:20:55] Council for the prosecutors, kindly accompany a representative from the council of the respondent
[2:20:59] to the tech booth to make sure the same USB to be played.
[2:21:02] Kindly just guide us through, council attorney Nervas, as regards to timestamps.
[2:21:06] Thank you, Your Honor.
[2:21:07] I will.
[2:21:08] Please don't forget your promise that it's not going to be the hold to ours.
[2:21:11] Yes, Your Honor.
[2:21:18] Waiting.
[2:21:25] Senator Judge Pia Cayetano, what is your pleasure, ma'am?
[2:21:28] Yes.
[2:21:29] If it's possible, Mr. President, if our secretariat can install a monitor here because
[2:21:36] it really doesn't look nice that I'm slouched there looking this way.
[2:21:45] So, and then this one here is a little bit, not for videos, but for the copies of affidavit,
[2:21:51] it's quite difficult.
[2:21:53] So, if they can put one here, the others want another, but I can speak for those in the
[2:21:57] front row you would like to request.
[2:21:58] Thank you.
[2:21:59] The Clerk of Court, rather, is instructed to kindly install a TV monitor in front of
[2:22:06] the tables of the Council for the parties instead of at the witness stand.
[2:22:11] Both sides.
[2:22:12] Underneath the table of the Council for the parties, Senator Judge Pia.
[2:22:22] Council, for the record and for reference, kindly identify the timestamp that you will
[2:22:58] be playing, I presume in chronological order.
[2:23:00] Your Honor, for the record, we are showing the witness a part of the video marked as the
[2:23:05] Prosecutor's Exhibit P-4-10.
[2:23:09] First video, the timestamp around 001-27 to 002-20 of the November 23, 2023 press briefing
[2:23:24] as contained in the video that you identified yesterday, sir.
[2:23:28] Your Honor, may we ask that the video be played at those specific timestamps.
[2:23:34] .
[2:23:43] How are they able to come up with an order, you know, to transfer me to the Women's
[2:24:10] Correctional in the dead of the night?
[2:24:12] .
[2:24:13] I mean, .
[2:24:14] .
[2:24:15] .
[2:24:16] .
[2:24:17] .
[2:24:18] .
[2:24:21] .
[2:24:26] .
[2:24:27] .
[2:24:28] .
[2:24:29] .
[2:24:30] .
[2:24:32] .
[2:24:33] .
[2:24:34] .
[2:24:35] .
[2:24:36] .
[2:24:39] .
[2:24:55] .
[2:24:56] .
[2:24:57] .
[2:24:58] .
[2:24:59] .
[2:25:00] .
[2:25:01] .
[2:25:02] .
[2:25:03] .
[2:25:23] .
[2:25:24] .
[2:25:25] .
[2:25:26] .
[2:25:27] .
[2:25:28] .
[2:25:29] .
[2:25:31] .
[2:25:32] .
[2:25:33] .
[2:25:34] .
[2:25:35] .
[2:25:36] .
[2:25:37] .
[2:25:38] .
[2:25:39] .
[2:25:41] .
[2:25:42] happen I don't have personal knowledge sir sir witness is not responsive the
[2:25:49] question was what happened prior to this video this particular clip of the video
[2:25:55] if you know given that you investigated the incident as he said as far as I
[2:26:02] remember there is a hearing in the House of Representatives what committee sir I
[2:26:09] can't remember what happened sir COS was sighted in content by
[2:26:25] who sir I can't remember but you investigated I would draw your honor
[2:26:30] can we play let me show you time stamps around zero zero two eight thirty two two
[2:26:38] zero zero twenty nine thirty three this is the same prosecution's exhibit P-4-10
[2:26:46] that is the video you identified yesterday your honor may we request that that
[2:26:51] video be played
[2:27:03] sorry sorry sorry so after you push back attorney they left the room no tama ba did
[2:27:12] they appreciate that appreciate that ano that detail accurately
[2:27:20] what is that it served about office business hour I mean official business
[2:27:29] hours I am not a criminal already here in their facility I have assured them
[2:27:39] already that I will let them they're heating on Monday so why will they treat me
[2:27:44] like that sir did you consider this in making your evaluation in the revised
[2:27:58] affidavit of investigation dated February 10 2025 yes sir thank you now let me show
[2:28:05] you time stamps around zero zero three three zero five two zero zero three four
[2:28:10] three two of the November 23 2023 press briefing as contained in the video that
[2:28:16] that you identified yesterday the prosecution's exhibit P-4-10 your honor may we request that
[2:28:28] I would not have pushed that step there by myself if I did not feel that I was being threatened
[2:28:42] my life is being threatened and I'm sure you saw in the hearing that my back hurts I cannot
[2:28:52] But because I'm afraid I feared for my life, I really pushed myself.
[2:29:01] Because it's not just harassment.
[2:29:08] This is really a threat to my life.
[2:29:12] They've got up on you in the middle of the night?
[2:29:20] Huh?
[2:29:23] Is that not?
[2:29:26] Isn't that a threat to my life?
[2:29:29] They know that I'm sick.
[2:29:31] Sir, did you investigate the threats to attorneys who like us like?
[2:29:44] We need a complaint for this one.
[2:29:48] That's why.
[2:29:49] Yes or no, sir?
[2:29:50] Did you investigate?
[2:29:52] We did not because there's no complaint.
[2:29:54] Okay, thank you.
[2:29:56] No question, sir.
[2:30:00] If the witness may be allowed to answer, Your Honor?
[2:30:02] I had no question.
[2:30:03] Already answered.
[2:30:05] Did you consider this part?
[2:30:09] In making your evaluation in the revised affidavit?
[2:30:14] Ashkan answered.
[2:30:15] He said yes earlier.
[2:30:16] This is a different part, Your Honor.
[2:30:18] This is a different part.
[2:30:19] This is a different part.
[2:30:21] Did you consider this part in your evaluation in the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025?
[2:30:28] Yes, sir.
[2:30:29] Okay, so despite considering these parts of the aforesaid videos, the NBI still recommended the filing of complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition only against the vice president.
[2:30:43] Yes?
[2:30:45] May I qualify my answer, sir?
[2:30:46] No, sir.
[2:30:47] Yes or no.
[2:30:49] There's a reason.
[2:30:50] There's a reason.
[2:30:51] Sir, your counsel may ask you questions.
[2:30:53] This is my turn.
[2:30:54] Report subject matter for redirect.
[2:30:57] So despite considering these parts of the video shown to you, the NBI still recommended the filing of complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition against only the vice president.
[2:31:10] Yes, sir.
[2:31:12] Now, in the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, in page 15, paragraph 40 thereof, it is stated there, and I quote,
[2:31:29] We unanimously believe that Vice President Duterte may be held liable for grave threats, defined and penalized under Article 282 of the revised penal code inciting to sedition, defined and penalized under Article 142 of the revised penal code in relation to RA 1017-5, or the Cyber Crime Prevention Act of 2012.
[2:31:53] You see that, sir, right?
[2:31:55] Yes, sir.
[2:31:56] This conclusion was reached by you together with other affians of the revised affidavit of investigation dated February 10, 2025, correct?
[2:32:09] Yes, sir.
[2:32:11] Now, sir, you mentioned that you're not a lawyer, right?
[2:32:15] Ask and answered.
[2:32:16] Ask and answered.
[2:32:17] To date, we are aware, are you aware, if any court has convicted the vice president for grave threats over what transpired on November 23, 2024?
[2:32:27] As far as I know, not yet, sir.
[2:32:31] Not yet.
[2:32:32] As far as you know.
[2:32:33] Mr. Witness, as far as you know, no.
[2:32:35] No, sir.
[2:32:36] To date, thank you, Your Honor.
[2:32:39] To date, are you aware, if any court has convicted the vice president for citing to sedition over what transpired on November 23, 2024?
[2:32:49] No, in my personal knowledge, sir.
[2:32:53] Thank you.
[2:32:54] But you're the complainant, right?
[2:32:57] Argumentative, Your Honor.
[2:32:58] Argumentative, Your Honor.
[2:32:59] I was just asking.
[2:33:00] I was just asking.
[2:33:01] Sustained.
[2:33:02] Move on.
[2:33:03] Ask and answered.
[2:33:04] Argumentative, didn't withdraw your question.
[2:33:05] Improper.
[2:33:06] 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.
[2:33:20] I am showing you this now.
[2:33:21] For the record, sir, Your Honor, I will show the… Can you check?
[2:33:29] Sir, please take a look.
[2:33:39] Please state for the record.
[2:33:52] This is your affidavit of transcription.
[2:34:04] Transcript, this refers to the press conference on November 23, 2024.
[2:34:09] Yes, sir.
[2:34:15] You signed this on December 20, 2024.
[2:34:18] Yes, sir.
[2:34:21] Sir, please take a look at your paragraph 2.
[2:34:25] Let's read it together.
[2:34:27] 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.
[2:34:42] You read that, sir?
[2:34:43] Yes, sir.
[2:34:44] On paragraph 3 thereof, let's read it together.
[2:34:47] The undersigned transcribed the video mentioned above, which resulted in a CCD transcript, hereto-attached.
[2:34:56] Yes, sir.
[2:34:58] You read that, sir?
[2:35:00] And 4, I hereby certify that the above-mentioned digital evidence has been faithfully transcribed, and that it has not been edited, altered, or changed in any way.
[2:35:09] Did you read that, sir?
[2:35:10] Yes.