Sara Duterte camp questions NBI witness credibility on impeachment trial's 5th day

MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte cast doubt on the credibility of the witness from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) during the impeachment trial’s fifth day on Tuesday, July 14. Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan questioned NBI Bangsamoro chief Jeremy Lotoc during the continuation of his cross-examination. He asked Lotoc regarding his personal knowledge of the things that happened during the infamous November 2024 Zoom press briefing where Duterte made the alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family. Lotoc is the prosecution’s witness who testified that Duterte had allegedly talked to a person to carry out the alleged threats against the President. Vinluan asked Lotoc if he knew whether the press conference happened in real life. The NBI chief said his knowledge is based on the transcription or evidence prepared by NBI agent John Mark Calilung and the interviews with journalists who attended the briefing. The defense also asked if Lotoc had personal knowledge of the Vice President’s claim that Marcos had allowed former House speaker Martin Romualdez to allegedly roam around the country and give out money. Lotoc, however, responded that he can only testify that Duterte’s utterances happened during the briefing. But Vinluan insisted that he was asking Vinluan about his personal knowledge of the “truth” behind the said statements and not whether the utterances were indeed made. Prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan objected, which the impeachment court sustained. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero reminded the floor that Lotoc is only competent to answer questions on whether the Vice President said those statements or not. Play Video The defense lawyer then made a manifestation, questioning Lotoc’s credibility: “We would like to manifest, your honor. Based on that ruling of the court, even if VP Sara said that she already talked to a person, then we cannot confirm the truth because this witness does not have personal knowledge.” “The defense is entitled to their own conception of things, entitled to their own imagination. That’s all,” Ligutan, meanwhile, said as a response. The cross-examination dragged on and on until the defense cornered Lotoc into the question again on whether he had personal knowledge of the claim that Duterte had contacted a person to fulfill the threats against the Marcoses. Ligutan objected, but Escudero asked Lotoc himself the same question. Vinluan later doubled down on his question. “We do believe that the Vice President had contracted [an assassin], but I don’t have personal knowledge, kung personal knowledge ang gusto ‘nyong malaman (if you really wanted to know if I have personal knowledge). Pero (But) we do believe, based on the evidence that we’ve gathered and based on our investigation,” Lotoc responded. On inciting to sedition During the cross-examination’s resumption on Tuesday, Vinluan brought up anew the discrepancies in the NBI investigation as well as the errors in the NBI complaint. But Lotoc said these issues did not alter the fact that the Vice President said her threats in the briefing and allegedly committed grave threats and inciting to sedition. Must Read Defense shows discrepancies in NBI probe into Sara Duterte threats The fourth article of impeachment against the Vice President also contains allegations of inciting to sedition — apart from grave threats against Marcos and the alleged contracting of an assassin. Vinluan then challenged the inciting to sedition claim by asking if the Marcos government had been overthrown following Duterte’s remarks. “Again, as I’ve said, as I’ve explained that, your honor, it’s not necessary to be seditious….” Lotoc said in response, but was cut short by the defense lawyer. Earlier, the NBI witness said the crime is committed by a person “who incites others, who stirs.” Under the Revised Penal Code, inciting to sedition is committed by a person who, “without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings.” Duterte’s state of mind Vinluan also highlighted the fact that his client is a lawyer. “Are you aware that the Vice President is a lawyer? That she has, of course, a law degree and passed the Bar exams? With a first attempt and with a rating of 80%, are you aware of this?” Vinluan asked Lotoc. “She has a higher grade than most of the lawyers here.” Ligutan objected on the ground of relevance. Escudero then reminded Vinluan to avoid “disparaging statements.” “There are a lot of lawyers, and you don’t know what their grades are,” said the presiding officer. But this was actually an attempt by Vinluan to establish Duterte’s state of mind at the time and to show that she is a lawyer who knows the law. “If she [were] serious about her alleged plan involving BBM (Bongbong Marcos), FL (First Lady), and the former speaker, does it make sense for her that she would publicly announce this to the general public?” Vinluan asked. Defense spokesperson Michael Poa said the question related to the Vice President being a lawyer might be seen as a way to downplay the seriousness of Duterte’s alleged threats. “But I think it’s just to show na it’s unnatural for someone na kung meron ka man talagang gustong pagbantaan o gawan ng masama ay i-a-announce mo kaagad sa publiko (But I think it’s just to show that it’s unnatural for someone that if you want to really threaten a person or harm him/her, you will immediately announce it to the public),” said the defense spokesperson. – Rappler.com