(UPDATE) MANILA, Philippines — The alleged threats by Vice President Sara Duterte against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez did not cover "freedom of expression," a witness for the prosecution testified before the Senate-turned-impeachment court on Monday.
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Director Jeremy Lontoc said during a direct examination at Duterte's impeachment trial that based on their investigation, Duterte "committed the crime of grave threats and inciting to sedition" based on evidence "with reasonable certainty of conviction."
Lotoc, the NBI's cybercrime division chief, said that while there was protected speech under freedom of expression, it did not protect utterances or threats made against the highest leaders of the land.
He also said that the vice president's statements had the "tendency to stir up the people against the government" and "undermine peace and order."
Lotoc testified that the NBI has "established the intent, motive of the Vice President to carry out her threat against Mr. Marcos."
He said that previous to the Nov. 23, 2024 virtual briefing, Duterte had already expressed desire to harm the President, threatening to "kill" him based on her utterances in her livestream dated Oct. 18.
Lotoc presented a video clip wherein Duterte, referring to the President, said, "Gusto kong tanggalin ang ulo niya (I wanted to remove his head). I realized toxic na itong relationship (the relationship has become toxic). I imagine myself cutting his head."
Under questioning from private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan, Lotoc said that they began their investigation on the threats made by Duterte when they were ordered by then NBI Director Jaime Santiago after the Nov. 23, 2024 press briefing.
Lotoc said that under the law, the NBI was directed to investigate cases that involved threats to security against the highest officials in the country, such as the president.
Lotoc also said that they issued a subpoena to Duterte in November to allow her to answer the allegations but that the Vice President was not able to attend the hearings and was instead represented by her lawyers.
Villanueva checks NBI metrics on evaluating threat credibility
Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva questioned the NBI assessment on public threats, whether a suspect’s high political status affects the conduct of its investigation.
Villanueva said the Impeachment Court should understand the NBI’s basis for treating a threat as "actionable" even when no specific alleged hitman has been identified.
“If the alleged assassin cannot be identified or located, does that automatically mean that the threat is no longer credible or actionable?” Villanueva asked Lotoc.
Lotoc said that the NBI relies on an objective evaluation of the criminal intent, context, and the relationship between the parties rather than the immediate apprehension of a hitman.
Senator-Judge JV Ejercito also questioned Lotoc's experience in handling grave threats cases. He sought clarification regarding the NBI’s authority to issue subpoenas to impeachable officials, such as the vice president.
Lotoc said the NBI is authorized under Republic Act 10867 to issue subpoenas, adding that the complaint against Duterte fell under cases in which the NBI has primary jurisdiction to investigate.
Aside from Duterte's case, Lotoc adds he could not recall handling another grave threats case, explaining that his previous assignments were in the NBI’s counterterrorism, organized crime and cybercrime units.
Ejercito asked Lotoc to explain the elements that differentiate grave threats from light threats.
Aside from Duterte's case, Lotoc said he could not recall handling another grave threats case, explaining that his previous assignments were in the NBI’s counterterrorism, organized crime and cybercrime units.
Ejercito asked Lotoc to explain the elements that differentiate grave threats from light threats.
Lotoc said grave threats involve threatening another person, his/her property or honor, or that of their family, with an act amounting to a crime. He added that the offense may be committed either with or without a condition attached to the threat.
Villanueva also questioned the defense panel’s argument that Duterte's statements were merely "conditional threats," provoked by surrounding political pressures.
He asked the NBI if the bureau had investigated whether the Vice President was facing security risks.
Lotoc said the NBI attempted to investigate the matter but the Vice President failed to appear or send a representative to validate her allegations.
“Aside from the authentication of the recordings, could you explain to us what became the NBI's basis in assessing the statements of the respondent? Did her position, her access, or authority affect how your investigation was conducted?” Villanueva asked.
Lotoc said the Vice President's immense authority, paired with a clear motive from a bitter political fallout, made her explicit threat to "cut off his head" an unusual and capable danger that the bureau had to take seriously.
Meanwhile, Senator-Judge Panfilo Lacson said that in the rules of evidence, an investigator's notes can be used as evidence if the contents were written on the exact dates when the subject of those notes happened.
He sought clarification on the investigator's notes being referred to by Jeremy Lotoc, former National Bureau of Investigation cybercrime division chief, during the fourth day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.
"Are you referring to investigator's notes or notebook or simply notes?" Lacson asked Lotoc.
"I asked that question because my understanding of an investigator's notes or notebook to be credible and may even be used as part of the examination or evidence in chief depending on its authenticity and purpose," he added.
Lotoc clarified that the notes are investigator's notes he made during the course of his investigation.
Aquino questions NBI on failure to identify hitman allegedly hired to kill President Marcos
Senator-Judge Bam Aquino questioned the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) over its failure to identify the person Vice President Duterte had allegedly hired to kill the president.
Aquino said that given the gravity of the statements attributed to the Vice President, the NBI should have established concrete findings.
“My question is focused on the person who was spoken to or allegedly contracted by Vice President Sara Duterte to kill the President, First Lady, and former Speaker. Did you continue the investigation to find this person?” Aquino asked Lontoc.
Lotoc admitted that the NBI had failed to validate or confirm the details regarding the alleged hitman despite issuing subpoenas to media personalities who witnessed the online press conference.
Aquino noted that while the actual broadcast clearly documented the Vice President's utteranves against the President, the failure of the NBI to identify the alleged hitman leaves the threat unverified.
“So what you mean to say is that, as the NBI, you were not able to find this person. But you based your assessment on the statement because it was explicitly stated by the Vice President herself,” Aquino said.
Lotoc said the NBI treated the remarks with absolute seriousness due to the extreme anger and profanity displayed by the Vice President.
He said that the investigation remains open while awaiting actionable data from the public or involved parties.
Chua says VP Duterte’s alleged threat speaks for itself, not merely conditional
House prosecution spokesperson and Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua argued that Vice President Duterte’s alleged threat against the president “speaks for itself” and should not be treated as merely a conditional statement in the grave threat complaint.
Responding to questions from reporters, Chua invoked the legal doctrine res ipsa loquitur—Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”—to support his position that the alleged statement itself is sufficient to establish the seriousness of the complaint.
“A threat is a threat. For example, if I say, ‘If you don’t pay your debt, I will kill you,’ you can still file a grave threat case against me. How much more if the threat is made by someone occupying one of the highest and most powerful positions in the country?” he said.
Chua also brushed aside questions over the absence of proof that authorities had identified or investigated an alleged assassin, saying the issue in the complaint is the alleged threat itself.
“What is being discussed here is the threat that was made, not the issue of an assassin. The alleged assassin has nothing to do with the threat because the threat can still be carried out even without one,” he said.
