Calilung testified that investigators immediately sought to preserve the livestream by sending a preservation request to Meta. He said Meta acknowledged the request, assigned it Case No. 916154, and allowed investigators to preserve the online content before it could be altered or removed.
The NBI examiner said the livestream was preserved using Open Broadcaster Software (OBS), an open-source application commonly used for livestreaming and screen recording.
Explaining the process, Calilung said OBS records everything displayed on a computer screen — including the video’s URL, time stamps, and audio-visual content — and generates an output file. Investigators then manually compared the recorded file with the original livestream to determine whether the recording faithfully reflected the source material.
During questioning by Sen. Joel Villanueva, Calilung explained that OBS itself does not edit or alter a recording but merely captures what appears on the screen.
Prosecution lawyer Amando Ligutan scrutinized the authentication process, asking how the NBI verified that the more than two-hour video accurately represented the original livestream.
At Ligutan’s request, the prosecution sought to play only the portion of the livestream containing Duterte’s controversial remarks instead of the entire two-hour broadcast.
Earlier, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano moved that the complete livestream be played before the impeachment court. Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero denied the request, saying the prosecution need only present portions relevant to the articles of impeachment.
“With the caveat that a portion of an entire video is being presented not only to save time but also to support the allegations of the prosecution insofar as the articles of impeachment are concerned,” Escudero said.
Sen. Erwin Tulfo likewise pointed out that under Rule 132, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, the prosecution was not legally required to present the entire recording merely because portions of it were being introduced as evidence.
The Senate then viewed a little over two minutes of the livestream, during which Duterte was heard to say:
“Huwag kang mag-alala sa security ko, kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sabi ko sa kanya, kapag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Liza Araneta, at si Martin Romualdez.”
(Don’t worry about my security because I have talked to someone. I told him that if I were killed to kill BBM, Liza Araneta and Martin Romualdez.)
The prosecution also played another video showing Duterte saying she would “behead” President Marcos Jr. and claiming that she had told Sen. Imee Marcos she would exhume the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and throw them into the West Philippine Sea.
The defense objected to the use of selected video clips, arguing that isolated excerpts deprived the impeachment court of the full context of Duterte’s remarks.
Another heated exchange centered on the Meta records presented by the prosecution to establish the chain of custody of the electronic evidence.
Defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa objected to a printed copy of Meta’s acknowledgment of the NBI’s preservation request, arguing that the document bore a “Certified True Copy” stamp that could not have appeared in Meta’s original email.
“This certified true copy would not have appeared in any correspondence with noreply@records.facebook.com. So it is not a printout; it is not an original,” Narvasa argued.
Ligutan countered that the defense’s objection was premature because the prosecution was merely identifying the document through the witness and not yet formally offering it in evidence.
He explained that the certification was added only after the document had been submitted to the House Committee on Justice during its impeachment inquiry and did not alter the underlying electronic record.
Escudero overruled the objection, ruling that the defense may raise admissibility issues once the prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence.
Narvasa again objected when Ligutan asked Calilung to explain the significance of Meta’s acknowledgment, arguing that an NBI examiner was not competent to testify on Meta’s internal procedures.
The prosecution responded that Calilung’s testimony was based on his training and experience as a digital forensic examiner and his handling of electronic evidence in previous cases.
Escudero likewise overruled that objection.
Calilung also testified that he personally compared the electronic screenshots with the printed copies submitted to the House Committee on Justice and found them to be identical.
He said the NBI’s forensic examination found no indication that the livestream had been edited, spliced, or generated using artificial intelligence.
According to investigators, the findings established the authenticity of the video and formed part of the evidence considered by the House before it approved the articles of impeachment against Duterte in February 2025.
