Defense questions NBI chief's knowledge of Sara Duterte's alleged 'threats'

The defense team for Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday, July 21, centered its cross-examination on National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag's lack of personal knowledge of certain aspects of the NBI's probe into the Vice President's alleged grave threats. Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan posed a series of queries, highlighting Matibag's limited personal insight into the investigation. Matibag repeatedly stated he had no personal knowledge regarding the 10 subpoenas issued to individuals present at Duterte's 2024 press conference, where she allegedly threatened President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family. He also noted he was not the signatory to these subpoenas as he had not yet been appointed NBI director at the time. The prosecution interjected that Matibag's testimonies were based on existing NBI records. Matibag explained the NBI probe has two parts: the initial investigation after the November 2024 press conference under a previous NBI head, and a second probe by a special task force created by Matibag's Administrative Order No. 11 in April. Vinluan invoked Rule 130, Section 22 of the amended rules on evidence, stating a witness can only testify on facts within their personal knowledge. The defense argued Matibag's knowledge is confined to the second probe. "What we are saying is, in terms of the first investigation, which he has no personal knowledge of, that’s hearsay," said defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa. "This means a person has no personal knowledge because that person was not involved in the investigation." Testing Matibag’s credibility, ‘bias’ Similar to past impeachment trials, the defense team cast doubt on Matibag by testing his credibility and supposed bias. "Our point is to test the credibility, test if there’s bias or none," Poa said. "We were really just testing the credibility and if the witness has personal bias, that will affect the integrity of his testimony or his conduct of investigation." The defense also brought up Matibag’s personal life, specifically an incident with friend Mel Sabio. Last May, Matibag was in hot water after a leaked phone conversation with his friend, where he was heard allegedly threatening to harm him. Matibag and Sabio have since reconciled. As to the alleged bias, the defense highlighted that Matibag's wife, Laguna 1st District Representative Ann Matibag, is among the lawmakers who backed the articles of impeachment against Duterte. Vinluan also presented Matibag’s opinion article, “Inday Sara, The Bratinella,” which depicted the Vice President as a brat. "Yes, my wife is one of the endorsers of the impeachment," Matibag said during the trial. "My decision to be a witness is by virtue of a subpoena issued by the honorable court and by invitation of the committee on justice, the prosecution. However, the job of my wife as a legislator is totally detached from me being the director of the National Bureau of Investigation." "We meant no offense, and I hope none was taken by Director Matibag. We respect that, except that in cross-examinations, you really have to test not just the credibility but also bias," Poa said in a mix of English and Filipino. Objecting to Lascañas’ affidavit The prosecution asked Matibag to read portions of self-confessed Davao Death Squad member Arturo Lascañas’ affidavit, which mentioned the Vice President. This affidavit has been submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as part of the crimes against humanity case against Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte. Lascañas named the Vice President over five times in his affidavit. There, he claimed that they had allegedly received kill orders from the former president, then later, from Sara as Davao City mayor. In another instance, Lascañas claimed that an abduction operation allegedly ordered by Sara had been relayed to him at one point. For the defense, Matibag’s reading of the document during the trial was “highly improper.” "We already allowed the witness [to] at least identify this document. But as to the fact that he is allowed to read even portions thereof, he’s not the author of this affidavit. And as to the truth or falsity thereof, [he’s] incompetent to testify on that. And it…already violates the rights of our client because she’s being prejudiced by the reading of this affidavit," Vinluan explained. The impeachment court allowed the defense's motion to continue its cross-examination of Matibag on Wednesday, July 22, to give them more time to study the Lascañas document. – Rappler.com