THE prosecution has confirmed to the Senate impeachment court that it will present a witness on the supposed hitman allegedly hired by Vice President Sara Duterte to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
In an online press briefing in November 2024, Duterte said she had hired someone to kill the president, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former speaker Martin Romualdez if she herself is killed.
On Day 3 of the impeachment trial of Duterte, the defense cross-examined the prosecution witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, who authenticated the video footage where Duterte allegedly made the threat.
Senator-Judge Bam Aquino asked Calilung whether he had investigated both the vice president’s videos and the alleged hitman mentioned in them.
Calilung said he had only been tasked to examine the videos.
Aquino asked the prosecution if it intended to present a witness on the alleged hitman.
Private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan replied, “As to the alleged hitman, your honor, please, yes.” After receiving confirmation, Aquino declined to pursue further questions on the issue, saying he would wait for the appropriate witness to testify.
He underscored the seriousness of the allegations, saying he would reserve his questions until the prosecution presents the witness.
Subpoena issued
The Senate impeachment court on Wednesday also ordered the issuance of a subpoena to lawyer Zuleika Lopez, a longtime aide of the vice president, as the House prosecution panel prepares to present more witnesses in the grave threats article of Duterte’s impeachment trial next week.
Presiding Officer Senator-Judge Francis Escudero issued the order after the prosecution clarified its witness lineup following the completion of the testimony of Calilung, the first witness in the trial.
Lopez was designated as Duterte’s chief of staff at the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in July 2022 and previously served as Davao City administrator when Duterte was mayor.
Her name figured prominently in the political firestorm that preceded the impeachment case after she was cited in contempt and detained by the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability in November 2024 during its inquiry into the use of OVP funds.
Escudero ordered the subpoena for Lopez to appear on July 13 to 14.
Defensor said the prosecution would present lawyer Jeremy Lotok on Monday and Lopez on Tuesday.
Legislative Security Bureau Executive Director Belinda Bello is also among the witnesses expected to be presented next week, Defensor said.
The prosecution earlier sought Lopez’s appearance, saying her testimony would be material and relevant to the allegations, and to the identification and authentication of documentary and other evidence before the impeachment court.
The court also confirmed that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) box earlier ordered returned on July 6 had already been delivered back to the BIR “sealed, untouched and duly received.” Escudero directed both the prosecution and defense to submit memoranda by Monday on the subpoena request covering BIR records, which will be argued together with the bank records issue on Wednesday.
Each side will be given 10 minutes for oral arguments, with three minutes each for rebuttal and surrebuttal, before the court decides on the matter.
Before the trial was adjourned, Aquino appealed to both camps to streamline the proceedings after the first witness took about nine hours.
“This is a plea. This is not an order to both parties,” Aquino said, urging the prosecution and defense to allow testimonies and evidence to come out in a manner that is easier for the public and senator-judges to understand.
Defense: No evidence of an assassin
The defense team maintained that the prosecution has “no other competent evidence” to prove that their client contracted an assassin to kill the president, the first lady and Romualdez.
They made this assertion as they closed their cross-examination of Calilung on Wednesday, who had testified on the authenticity of the video of Duterte’s November 2024 press briefing.
In his closing remarks, defense counsel Mark Vinluan quoted the response of Senator-Judge Risa Hontiveros that none of the statements made by Calilung was proof that Duterte contracted an assassin or hired one.
“She then asked the question, why are these acts impeachable? To this question, the prosecution responded, “We understand that these statements may not actually 100 percent prove that she in fact contracted an assassin — an assassin,” Vinluan said.
Vinluan also pointed out that Duterte and her family were threatened and while the response was unconventional, it was justified, and stressed that what triggered her response was “Operation Romanov,” an alleged plot to kill her and her family.
“When VP Sara uttered those words, she was not responding as Sara Duterte, the vice president, but Sara Duterte, the wife, mother, daughter and sister who only sought to protect her own and her family members’ lives. Operation Romanov is in place, and the threat against their lives is real,” Vinluan said.
She added that Duterte became a target of “unauthorized intelligence and surveillance operations by government operatives that exposed her family to high-level risks and security threats, thereby causing intense trauma and uncontrollable fear.” Vinluan argued that Duterte did not commit an impeachable offense, but rather “drew the line in the sand and said, enough is enough. That is the meaning, and that is the context.” To date, there is no evidence confirming that “Operation Romanov” was a real or verified plot against the Dutertes.
The defense lawyer also said that the alleged grave threats and inciting to sedition falls under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court and first level courts, and should not be considered as high crimes under the Constitution.
“She never incited sedition. She merely echoed the voice of ordinary Filipinos. Her message that day only reflected what was already in their hearts and minds. There was no betrayal of public trust. She actually upheld the people’s trust as she spoke for and behalf of the people,” Vinluan said.
During the cross-examination, defense counsel Carlo Narvasa presented a certification from the Department of Justice noting that the NBI’s initial case referral lacked the necessary evidence and recommended a case build up.
Under questioning from Narvasa, Calilung also confirmed that the NBI was the only complainant of the grave threats made by Duterte, and that the first couple and the former speaker did not submit their own affidavits or file any criminal complaints against Duterte.
He also said that he has no personal knowledge of the press conference, the alleged threat or the alleged hitman, as he only reviewed the livestream using a software called Open Broadcast Software.
Speaking after the trial, Defense counsel and spokesman Michael Wesley Poa said they were happy on how Narvasa handled the cross-examination, noting that they were able to show the extent of the investigation, the parts of the video that would provide context and the nature of the affidavit of investigation.
Meanwhile, prosecution spokesman Robert Ace Barbers said the defense failed to dent the testimony of Calilung, noting that he remained consistent during the cross-examination. “He was very consistent with all his statements from the beginning and even during the cross-examination. He was firm and stood by the statements and testimony he gave during the first day that he was presented as a witness for the prosecution,” Barbers said.
Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano called for strict adherence to the Senate impeachment rules, objecting to what he described as a “leading question” from the prosecution.
While questioning Calilung, the prosecution asked him to identify the timestamp in the video where Duterte allegedly said she had hired someone to kill the first family.
Cayetano objected, arguing that the question was leading and that prosecutors should first establish the basis of the witness’ testimony by asking him to describe the contents of the video before directing him to a specific portion.
Presiding officer Senator-Judge Francis Escudero agreed with the objection and instructed the prosecution to “lay the basis” before asking about the specific timestamp. WITH PNA
