NBI testimonies solidify grave threat case vs. VP Duterte – prosecution

Director Melvin Matibag of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and two of his agents have provided enough evidence to prove the grave threat allegation against Vice President Sara Duterte, Rep. Rodge Gutierrez said in a media briefing on Wednesday. “We do believe that the evidence has already established all the points that the prosecution needed to establish,” Gutierrez said, referring to the fourth impeachment article, which accuses Duterte of betraying public trust by threatening to have someone kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. The accusation stemmed from Duterte’s Nov. 23, 2024, online media conference, in which she said she had arranged for someone to kill the country’s top officials if she herself were killed. Gutierrez explained that it was Matibag, the last witness for the fourth article, who “was able to piece together the evidence” earlier provided by Senior Agent John Mark Calilung and Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc. Calilung authenticated the recording of Duterte’s “kill” remarks, and Lotoc testified that the NBI found probable cause to recommend the filing of criminal complaints for grave threats and inciting to sedition against the vice president. “With the testimony of Director Matibag, we now have the institutional picture of how the NBI treated the statement. So I think now we have put in open court the legal implications, or how the NBI assessed the same,” Gutierrez said. According to him, the prosecution’s confidence was reinforced during the cross-examination of its witnesses and by its decision to withdraw several witnesses after concluding that the essential facts had already been established. Deputy Speaker Paolo Ortega V said Matibag’s testimony completed the prosecution’s presentation by placing the evidence in its proper context and showing that authorities continue to treat the alleged threat as active. “The arrival of NBI Director Matibag provided a big piece of the puzzle, because he was able to complete the story,” Ortega said in Filipino. “He painted the bigger picture and was able to show the evidence completely, and he was able to affirm the prosecution’s stand on the evidence — that it really happened and it’s still an active threat,” he added. Ortega pointed out that Matibag also testified that the NBI investigation remained active, with its agents continuing to pursue leads and persons of interest involved in the alleged plot. Lawyer Benjamin “Jay” Tolosa Jr., legal spokesperson and counsel for the House prosecutors, said Matibag’s testimony completed the NBI’s “chain of evidence” by explaining the bureau’s institutional assessment of Duterte’s statements. According to Tolosa, the NBI did not rely solely on Duterte’s viral remarks but examined the totality of the circumstances before concluding that the alleged threats had become a national security concern. “They were not relying on just one viral video or just one statement. They used a totality-of-the-circumstances approach in reaching the conclusion that these remarks had transcended into the level of a national security concern since they affect no less than the head of state, our commander-in-chief,” he said. Tolosa also cited Matibag’s testimony that investigators were “100 percent sure” Duterte had spoken with someone regarding the alleged plot and are now working to identify that person. “His answer was: 100 percent sure, there is [still a threat]. So again, they’re pursuing leads. This is now for the purpose of identifying that person. But there’s no question anymore if there was really a person she talked to,” he said. It would still be up to the senator-judges to appreciate the evidence presented by the prosecution, he pointed out. But for him, the evidence was enough to answer the critical question of whether or not the vice president should remain in office. “With these words and actions [of the vice president], is she showing that she had betrayed the trust of the people who put her in office? Do they show a clear and serious violation of the Constitution? For us, the answer to this is clear,” Tolosa said. /atm