PROSECUTORS in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte said Tuesday they would no longer call her chief of staff Zuleika Lopez and House sergeant-at-arms Belinda Bello as witnesses, as their testimonies were merely corroborative and it would be redundant to present them before court.
Private prosecution counsel Lorna Kapunan said the witnesses from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) proved competent in their testimony over the last five days of the impeachment trial.
“We are doing our part [to shorten the proceedings],” Kapunan said. “We reduced trial dates by lessening our presentation by two witnesses.” Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said he welcomed the move to minimize delays, saying that at the rate they were going—two witnesses in five days—the trial would take a year and five months to finish.
At yesterday’s session, the NBI said the agency had classified as "unvalidated information" the claim of a vlogger concerning Oplan Romanov, a supposed plot to kill Duterte and her family.
On the fifth day of the impeachment trial against Duterte, NBI-BARMM Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc said the agency took seriously the warning of Princess Maui to the vice president that their political enemies were out to eliminate them.
He made the remark when Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo asked him about the rating the NBI had given to the supposed threat to the Dutertes.
Tulfo said any intelligence information is classified as A1 (completely reliable), A2 (information is probably true), B1 (usually reliable source), B2 (information probably true but needs validation), C1 (fairly reliable source), C2 (fairly reliable source but information needs validation), and D to F (sources doubtful, unreliable).
"That's the reason why when we saw the question of Princess Maui about the Romanov, we conducted an open source investigation," Lotoc said.
The NBI official said investigators sought to obtain information from the vice president regarding the alleged threat, but she did not cooperate with the inquiry. Lotoc added that Princess Maui also did not provide information that would allow authorities to validate the claim.
“So, we classified this [supposed threat on the vice president] as non-validated information,” he said.
"Then, we saw in January 2024 during the Maisug rally, if I'm not mistaken, the term, the word Romanov, was uttered by [Davao City] Mayor Baste [Duterte]. It seemed that he was warning the president," he said.
"So, we wondered. It seemed to be the other way around. If the 'Romanov' [idea] originated from Mayor Baste, why did Princess Maui raise it with the vice president [as a threat against her]? So, it doesn't make sense," Lotoc said.
"We were not able to validate anything since Princess Maui did not appear [to elaborate on her claim]. So, we classified the information as unvalidated information," he said. "It's not reliable insofar as the [NBI] cybercrime division is concerned." Videos replayed The defense panel, meanwhile, presented several video excerpts from her online press conference on Nov. 23, 2024.
The defense's presentation came a day after the prosecution showed selected clips from the same press conference, highlighting statements in which she said she had contracted a person to kill President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez if she were killed.
Seeking to provide broader context, the defense played portions of the press conference in which Duterte leveled accusations against Romualdez, alleging that he was involved in kidnapping, harassing political opponents, bribing individuals, and engaging in criminal activities. During the same briefing, the vice president also accused the government of torturing people, described President Marcos as a "liar," and criticized him for allegedly allowing Romualdez to act without restraint.
defense lawyer Mark Vinluan asked Lotoc about the allegations raised by Duterte in the video.
Asked whether the accusations made by the vice president were true, Lotoc testified that he had no personal knowledge of the claims. He said the NBI was only aware of the allegations because they were publicly stated by Duterte during the press conference.
Vinluan also asked the NBI official whether he had personal knowledge that Duterte had actually communicated with anyone to carry out the alleged killing of President Marcos, the First Lady, and Romualdez.
Lotoc replied that he had no firsthand knowledge of any such communication. However, he testified that, based on the NBI's investigation, he believed the vice president had contracted someone to carry out the alleged plan, while emphasizing that his conclusion was based on the agency's investigation and not on personal knowledge.
The defense also presented another video clip in which President Marcos publicly expressed his willingness to reconcile with the Duterte family, saying he remained open to restoring political ties despite the growing tensions between the two camps. Focus on typos House prosecution spokesman Robert Ace Barbers on Tuesday accused the defense team of dwelling on typographical and clerical errors instead of challenging the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Speaking after Monday's proceedings, Barbers said the defense's cross-examination of Lontoc largely centered on discrepancies in Department of Justice documents rather than the substance of the witness' testimony under Article IV of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Duterte of betrayal of public trust.
"It was not a spelling contest," Barbers said, arguing that the defense should have disproved the substance of Lontoc's testimony instead of highlighting clerical mistakes in the documents presented before the impeachment court.
According to Barbers, the issue before the Senate is whether Duterte made the alleged threats, not whether minor documentary errors exist.
He also distinguished impeachment proceedings from criminal trials, saying the Senate's role is to determine whether the alleged conduct is compatible with continued service in public office.
"The question is whether the threat was made and whether such conduct is acceptable for a public official entrusted with one of the country's highest offices," Barbers said.
