Duterte camp questions NBI evidence trail, cites ‘substantial discrepancy’ in probe records
Day four of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte continues.| Photos by Aram Lascano/ Senate Press Photographers POOL
Text size
Day four of the impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte continues.| Photos by Aram Lascano/ Senate Press Photographers POOL
Tinio: Billions funneled into lump-sum aid programs
Before politics, the pressures of public life, and the Presidential Palace, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. remembers a…
When a Tennessee woman was sentenced to death in 1996 for murdering a 19-year-old student the year before, she remained…
Records from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) showed that Cale88 Foods Corp., a firm linked to Vice President…
Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday challenged the integrity of the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) case records, flagging what they termed a “substantial discrepancy” in documents used to support charges that she threatened the lives of the President and other top officials.
During the fourth day of proceedings in the Senate impeachment trial, defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan focused on a date inconsistency in an Investigation Data Form (IDF) attached to the NBI’s original affidavit submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Vinluan pointed out that while the document was subscribed and sworn to on February 11, 2025, it bore a DOJ receiving stamp dated January 30, 2025—a 12-day gap that suggests the document was recorded as received nearly two weeks before it was legally executed.
“The discrepancy is not one day or two days,” Vinluan told the court. “The discrepancy is from February 11 to January 30.”
The defense argued that the inconsistency was important because the NBI records were being used to support allegations that Duterte committed grave threats against Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
When asked to explain the "retroactive" dating, NBI-Bangsamoro Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, who was the NBI's cybercrime chief in 2024, admitted he could not answer because he did not personally handle the filing or receiving of the records
The defense further probed a February 5, 2025, DOJ certification which reviewed the NBI’s initial investigation. Vinluan highlighted a portion of the certification stating the NBI’s submission was “insufficient for the conduct of preliminary investigation and must first be referred for case build-up.”
While Lotoc disagreed with the characterization that the work was deficient, he acknowledged the NBI subsequently had to submit additional affidavits and supporting materials requested by prosecutors to satisfy legal requirements.
The NBI investigation began after Duterte’s remarks during a November 2024 online briefing, where she said she had made arrangements to have Marcos, Araneta-Marcos and Romualdez killed if she herself were assassinated.
The NBI subsequently conducted an investigation and prepared an affidavit of investigation that was transmitted to the DOJ for evaluation.
The defense questioned the January 30, 2025 affidavit, which it said formed part of the NBI’s initial submission to prosecutors.
Vinluan also examined a February 5, 2025 DOJ certification that reviewed the NBI’s initial affidavit of investigation.
Vinluan also questioned Lotoc about the February 5 DOJ certification, highlighting a portion stating that the NBI submission was “insufficient for the conduct of preliminary investigation and must first be referred for case build-up.”
The defense pointed to several observations made by the DOJ, including missing affidavits and additional supporting documents involving evidence submitted by investigators.
Vinluan used the DOJ assessment to argue that the NBI’s initial filing had not yet met the requirements for a full preliminary investigation.
Lotoc rejected the characterization that the NBI investigation was deficient, saying the bureau’s affidavit was substantial and that the DOJ’s comments involved additional documentary requirements needed to complete the submission.
“We didn’t revise the affidavit. We only provided the additional affidavits and supporting documents required by the Department of Justice,” Lotoc said.
Prosecutors objected to the defense’s focus on the initial affidavit, arguing that Vinluan was examining an earlier stage of the NBI referral rather than the later submission made after investigators complied with DOJ requirements.
The Senate impeachment court allowed the defense to continue questioning the documents, noting that the records formed part of the evidence submitted in the proceedings.
