MANILA, Philippines — Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva questioned the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) assessment on public threats, whether a suspect’s high political status affects the conduct of its investigation.
Villanueva on Monday 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 House prosecution second witness Jeremy Lotoc, former NBI cybercrime division chief.
During the fourth day of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, 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 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.
Lotoc, now NBI-BARMM regional director, was the House prosecution's second witness against Duterte in relation to her threat against the President, which is covered under Article IV of the impeachment complaint against her.
"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.