Matibag's testimony on Sara Duterte's threats called 'hearsay' by defense

The defense team for Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday questioned the credibility of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag's testimony during her impeachment trial. Matibag testified regarding allegations that Duterte made grave threats and was involved in an assassination plot against President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. and other high-ranking officials. The defense argued that Matibag lacked personal knowledge of the investigation. On the eighth day of the trial, the House prosecution panel presented Matibag as their final witness for Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment, which pertains to Duterte's alleged grave threats and assassination plot. However, during cross-examination, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan pressed Matibag on whether he had personal knowledge of the NBI's investigation, including the issuance of subpoenas against the Vice President and journalists Bonz Magsambol and Red Mendoza. Matibag answered in the negative, citing his assumption of office only last February. Vinluan then asked Matibag for his understanding of "hearsay" in Tagalog, suggesting it could be translated as "sabi-sabi" or "chismis" (gossip). He implied that without personal knowledge, the testimony would essentially be "chismis." The prosecution explained that Matibag was basing his answers on existing NBI records, not on direct personal involvement. Matibag himself expressed unfamiliarity with the term "hearsay" being equated to "chismis" in a court setting. In a separate interview, defense lawyer Michael Poa reiterated that Matibag's testimony concerning the initial investigation could be considered hearsay due to his lack of personal involvement. This point is crucial as it could affect the weight of the evidence presented against the Vice President. This development highlights the intricate nature of political disputes in the Philippines, where high-stakes legal and political battles often involve contested evidence and testimonies. The proceedings could have implications for the stability of the current administration and public trust in its institutions.