National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag on Tuesday downplayed the typographical errors in the subpoenas and affidavits related to the bureau’s probe into Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged kill plot against President Marcos Jr. and his family, calling it a “clear oversight” that is common in templated documents. 

Matibag was referring to multiple clerical errors flagged by the defense and senator-judges in the said documents issued by the NBI in late 2024, which formed part of the prosecution’s evidence in Article 4, alleging that the VP committed a grave threat to the President.

Grave threat is one of the grounds that constitute an impeachable offense under the Constitution.

“You know, that really happens…Subpoenas are based on templates. So, sometimes the process is that they just cut and paste. So, there are times inadvertent oversight occurs where the date doesn’t get updated,” Matibag explained in Filipino in a radio interview. 

He added, “It was a clear oversight that was already addressed.” 

The errors were flagged during the first day of the testimony of NBI Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, the second witness by the prosecution in Article 4.

His testimony primarily centered on the NBI’s investigation into Duterte’s controversial remarks during a press conference on 18 October and 23 November 2024. 

Duterte was quoted as saying in the October briefing that she wanted to behead Marcos after realizing that their relationship had gone “toxic.”

One month later, a visibly enraged Duterte revealed in an online midnight briefing that she contracted a hitman to kill Marcos, First Lady Lisa Marcos, and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez, if she herself gets killed first, citing “threats” to her life. 

Lotoc said the NBI found the threat to be “serious” and fell beyond the bounds of free speech, prompting an investigation. The NBI subsequently forwarded the complaints to the Department of Justice in January 2025, charging Duterte with three counts of grave threats and one count of inciting to sedition. 

However, during the cross-examination, the defense and senator-judges called into question the errors in the documents that form part of the complaint. 

For instance, Senator-judge Imee Marcos flagged an NBI subpoena issued to ABS-CBN, compelling the network to submit an authenticated copy of Duterte’s November briefing. 

The subpoena was dated 6 November, although the bureau was only directed to launch a probe into the matter after the 23 November press conference. In addition, the lawmaker also pointed to an NBI affidavit, which bore the same date, but was not released on that day.

Marcos argued that these errors suggest that the NBI may have already been keeping an eye on the VP long before she uttered the kill plot.

Lotoc, who was the head of the NBI's cybercrime division at the time, dismissed them as mere typographical errors. 

Lawyer Mark Vinluan, a member of Duterte’s defense, did not buy Lotoc’s explanation, arguing that the date discrepancies were way beyond clerical error since they were also used in the footnotes of the investigation affidavit.

Furtheremore, Vinluan pointed out that the NBI is under the DOJ, which operates under the executive branch headed by Marcos.

Matibag, however, countered that the date errors are merely common, especially since they use pre-existing templates.

Matibag is also expected to testify on the NBI’s probe into Duterte’s alleged grave threats to the President. 

However, the Senate impeachment court on Monday turned down the prosecution’s request to allow Matibag to take the witness stand earlier than his scheduled testimony.

Matibag requested to testify on Tuesday, 14 July as he has a work engagement abroad with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on 21 and 22 July. But the impeachment court said there are available flights on Monday evening. 

Matibag took offense at Cayetano’s remarks, alleging he was effectively “dictating” the court with his request. 

That is why I’m wondering—respectfully to Senator Cayetano—why would he say that [I am] dictating [the court]?

Matibag averred that while he has high respect for the Senate impeachment court, he did not buy the claims of some senator-judges and the defense that rescheduling requires ample time for them to adjust and review. 

He remarked that all camps have been aware that he would eventually take the witness stand, as clearly indicated in the pre-trial order they obtained before the start of the trial.

The prosecution stressed that the schedule change would barely disrupt the trial, given that Matibag would testify just one day earlier than his scheduled appearance.

Still, the impeachment court ruled that they will call Matibag on Monday, 20 June, and let him to take the witness again after his return form Bangkok.