VP Duterte: Day 4 of trial exposed weak impeachment case



“Let’s stick to what was originally agreed on, and by way of exception, as the need arises, we will cross the bridge…

Col. Raymund Dante Lachica, former head of Vice President Sara Duterte’s security detail, said on Tuesday he was…

A P150,000 discrepancy in the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) confidential fund records was traced to expenses…

Malacañang on Tuesday again criticized Senator Imee Marcos for what it described as an attempt to help Vice President…

Palace press officer, Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro, has once again hit Senator Imee…
Vice President Sara Duterte said on Tuesday that the fourth day of her Senate impeachment trial reinforced her claim that the case against her was unsupported by evidence, after proceedings focused on allegations that she threatened the lives of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and other senior officials.
In a statement, Duterte rejected the prosecution's presentation, accusing it of building its case on fabricated claims rather than proof.
"The country witnessed what I have been saying all along: the complaint is not supported by evidence," she said.
“Repeatedly claiming that there were threats when none existed, inventing an assassin where there was none, and fabricating evidence to support those claims does not transform fiction into fact," Duterte added.
She argued that such actions undermine public institutions, erode public trust, waste public resources and "corrupt the search for truth."
National Bureau of Investigation official Jeremy Lotoc testified on Monday before the Senate impeachment court as a prosecution witness on the article accusing Duterte of grave threats.
Lotoc said investigators concluded Duterte's November 2024 remarks against Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez were "serious" and warranted criminal charges.
During cross-examination, however, the defense pressed Lotoc on the absence of any validated information identifying an alleged hired assassin, arguing that investigators had no evidence showing anyone had actually been contracted. The prosecution countered that the alleged offense of grave threats did not depend on proving the existence of a hired killer.