ASEANEWS HEADLINE-VP DU30 IMPEACHMENT 7.13.26 DAY #4 | MANILA: VP threats vs Marcos ‘serious, real’ – NBI exec
DAY 4 WITNESS Lawyer Jeremy Lotoc, the Bangsamoro regional director of the NBI, takes the witness stand on Day 4 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday. Lotoc led the NBI team that probed the threats made by Duterte against President Marcos in 2024. —Niño Jesus Orbeta
.
.
.
WATCH VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqSS4qp6tws
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF VP SARA DUTERTE (DAY 4)
.
.
MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutors on Monday strengthened their impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte, presenting a National Bureau of Investigation official who testified that her alleged threats against President Marcos, first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former Speaker Martin Romualdez were “serious, real and actual” and not merely political rhetoric or emotional outbursts.
Lawyer Jeremy Lotoc, now NBI regional director for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and formerly chief of the bureau’s cybercrime division, told the Senate impeachment court on its second week of trial that investigators concluded Duterte’s statements met the elements of criminal offenses after examining not only the words she uttered but also the context in which they were made.
Appearing as the prosecution’s second witness for Article IV of the impeachment complaint, Lotoc said the bureau analyzed Duterte’s Oct. 18 and Nov. 23, 2024, online press briefings to determine whether her remarks were simply made in anger or constituted genuine threats.
.
READ: Highlights: Day 4 of Sara Duterte impeachment trial | July 13, 2026
 |
“We wanted to establish the intent of the Vice President,” Lotoc testified. “We wanted to determine whether those utterances were just a product of a temporary fit of anger or whether they were serious, actual and real threats.”
“[Our conclusion was that the threats] were serious and real,” he said.
Lotoc said investigators considered Duterte’s manner of speaking, the literal meaning of her statements, the nature of her alleged instructions and her deteriorating relationship with Marcos.
He said investigators also reviewed Duterte’s Oct. 18, 2024, livestream in which she spoke of imagining cutting off the President’s head.
.
CROSS-EXAMINATION On Day 3 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the defense team grills prosecution witness John Mark Calilung of the National Bureau of Investigation. Lawyer Carlo Narvasa did the questioning (left) while cocounsel Mark Vinluan presented some main arguments. —Photo by Niño Jesus Orbeta
READ: Senator-judges seen leaving session hall during impeachment trial
Asked by prosecutor Amando Ligutan whose head she referred to, Lotoc replied: “The head of the President of the Philippines.”
.
|
|
The witness said the NBI also considered the reactions of other government agencies after Duterte’s Nov. 23 online press conference.
He noted that the Presidential Communications Office (PCO) described the remarks as an “active threat,” while the Philippine National Police referred to an “assassin.”
Defense lawyer Mark Vinluan objected, saying Duterte herself never used the word “assassin” and arguing that the prosecution’s question was leading.
Ligutan countered that the description came from the PCO and the PNP.
Lotoc also testified that investigators subpoenaed journalists who attended the online briefing to establish the circumstances surrounding Duterte’s statements.
|
|
.
He described the Vice President as “furious” and “fuming mad,” but said her emotional state did not diminish the gravity of her remarks.
“In those utterances, it showed persistence on the part of the Vice President that she was determined to carry them out,” he said, adding that such statements were alarming because they could encourage others to act.
Lotoc also rejected the defense’s argument that Duterte’s remarks were protected by freedom of speech.
“When the second-highest official of the land openly and publicly uttered that she had already contracted a person to kill the highest official of the land, the first lady and the former Speaker, and instructed that person to be relentless in killing them, we fail to see any amount of freedom of speech in those utterances,” he told the impeachment court.
He warned that accepting such statements as protected expression could embolden others to make similar threats.
“Imagine, your honor, the anarchy, the disorder and the chaos it would bring to our country,” he said.
“Freedom of speech protects lawful expression, but it does not protect utterances that [satisfy] the elements of a criminal offense like this one,” he asserted.
Lotoc concluded that Duterte’s statements constituted grave threats and also contained elements of inciting to sedition because they had the tendency to stir hostility against the government and undermine public order.
.
Defense attacks probe
During cross-examination, Vinluan sought to weaken Lotoc’s testimony, arguing that his conclusions were based on subjective interpretation rather than direct evidence
He repeatedly emphasized that Duterte never explicitly used the word “assassin” during the Nov. 23 press conference, arguing that investigators merely adopted descriptions later used by other government agencies.
Vinluan pressed the witness on whether the NBI had verified the existence of the person Duterte claimed to have instructed, and whether investigators found evidence that any actual assassination plot had been organized.
Lotoc acknowledged that the NBI had yet to identify any alleged hit man but maintained that criminal liability did not depend on proving that such a person existed.
Instead, he said the investigation focused on Duterte’s own public declarations, their context and their likely impact on public safety.
Senator-judge Bam Aquino also questioned the NBI’s failure to identify the alleged hired killer, saying that given the seriousness of Duterte’s statements, investigators should have established concrete findings.
..
Lotoc replied that the investigation remains open and that the bureau continues to await actionable information, but stressed that the NBI treated Duterte’s remarks as credible because of their content, context and the manner in which they were delivered.
The defense likewise attempted to cast Duterte’s remarks as political speech delivered in anger during an escalating feud with the Marcos administration.
Lotoc disagreed, saying investigators had carefully distinguished between protected political expression and statements that crossed into criminal conduct.
|
|
.
“Our role was to determine whether these utterances met the elements of a crime,” he said, adding that investigators considered the content, context, motive and capability behind the statements before concluding they were credible threats.
Witnesses on ‘Romanov’
The defense also signaled that it would present witnesses on the alleged “Operation Romanov,” which it claims was an assassination plot against Duterte and her family and the event that prompted her controversial remarks.
But Vinluan declined to identify the defense’s witnesses, saying the lineup would depend on how the prosecution’s case develops, but confirmed that the camp intends to present evidence supporting its claim that Duterte and her family were under threat. —WITH REPORTS FROM ZACARIAN SARAO, AND MARC ANDRE ESGUERRA
.
@inquirerdotnet / Philippine Daily InquirerJuly 14, 2026.
Ads by:
