Defense puts NBI probe on trial
‘The discrepancy is not one day or two days. The discrepancy is from January 30 to February 11.’
Text size
‘The discrepancy is not one day or two days. The discrepancy is from January 30 to February 11.’
The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday challenged both the integrity of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) case records and the impartiality of the bureau’s investigation into her alleged threats against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., arguing that inconsistencies in key documents and the NBI’s position under the executive branch cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence.
On the fourth day of the Senate impeachment trial, defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan highlighted what he described as a “substantial discrepancy” in an Investigation Data Form (IDF) attached to the NBI’s original affidavit submitted to the Department of Justice (DoJ).
Vinluan pointed out that the document was subscribed and sworn to on 11 February 2025, but bore a DoJ receiving stamp dated 30 January 2025 — a 12-day gap suggesting it had been received nearly two weeks before it was legally executed.
“The discrepancy is not one day or two days. The discrepancy is from January 30 to February 11,” Vinluan told the court.
He argued that the inconsistency was significant because the records formed part of the evidence supporting allegations that Duterte made grave threats against Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Asked to explain the apparent discrepancy, NBI Bangsamoro Regional director Jeremy Lotoc, who headed the bureau’s cybercrime division in 2024, said he could not answer because he did not personally handle the filing or receipt of the documents.
The defense also examined a 5 February 2025 DoJ certification stating that the NBI’s initial submission was “insufficient for the conduct of a preliminary investigation and must first be referred for case build-up.”
Lotoc rejected the suggestion that the investigation was deficient but acknowledged that prosecutors required the NBI to submit additional affidavits and supporting documents before acting on the referral.
“We didn’t revise the affidavit. We only provided the additional affidavits and supporting documents required by the Department of Justice,” he said.
The NBI investigation stemmed from Duterte’s 23 November 2024 online press conference, during which she said she had arranged for Marcos, the First Lady, and Romualdez to be killed if she herself were assassinated. The bureau later forwarded its findings to the DoJ, which sought additional evidence before proceeding.
The prosecution objected to Vinluan’s questioning, arguing that he was referring only to the initial stage of the DoJ review and not the later submission after the NBI complied with prosecutors’ requirements. The Senate impeachment court nevertheless allowed the defense to continue, ruling that the documents formed part of the evidence before the tribunal.
Questions on NBI impartiality
The defense also sought to cast doubt on the independence of the NBI investigation, arguing that the bureau’s attachment to the DoJ — part of the executive branch headed by Marcos, one of the alleged targets of Duterte’s remarks — created the appearance of bias.
Lotoc rejected the assertion, insisting that the investigation was conducted independently.
“Our investigation is evidence-based. We believed the evidence was complete and that we had established a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction,” he said.
When asked whether President Marcos had intervened in the investigation, Lotoc replied: “Of course not.”
He testified that the NBI began its investigation motu proprio on 23 November 2024, the same day the DoJ ordered a probe, but said the bureau would have acted regardless because the NBI Modernization Act gives it primary jurisdiction over threats against the President and other top government officials.
“With or without the directive from the DoJ, the NBI has primary jurisdiction over that case,” Lotoc said.
Vinluan also questioned why NBI officials, during previous House hearings, did not clarify that their findings were merely recommendations subject to review by the DoJ and the courts.
Lotoc acknowledged that no such clarification had been made because lawmakers had not asked about the legal effect of the bureau’s findings. He maintained, however, that prosecutors independently reviewed the evidence and required the NBI to submit additional materials before accepting its referral.
House private prosecutor Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan repeatedly objected to the defense’s line of questioning, arguing that the impeachment court was not determining Duterte’s criminal liability but whether her actions constituted betrayal of public trust.
House prosecutors have maintained that Article IV of the impeachment complaint does not depend on a criminal conviction, arguing that Duterte’s public statements alone are sufficient to establish grounds for impeachment.
