MANILA, Philippines – The protection group of Sara Duterte centered its cross-examination on Tuesday, July 21, by pounding on Nationwide Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag’s lack of non-public data of some elements of the NBI’s probe into the Vice President’s alleged grave threats.
Throughout his cross-examination, protection lawyer Mark Vinluan laid out the NBI director’s lack of non-public data by asking him a sequence of queries. First, Vinluan requested Matibag concerning the 10 subpoenas issued to the personalities who attended Duterte’s 2024 press convention, the place she allegedly threatened President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his household.
Every time Matibag stated he lacked private data of a selected doc flashed on the display screen, the protection put an “X” emoji on it.
The NBI director stated he was additionally not the signatory to the NBI subpoenas as a result of he was not but appointed on the time.
“The witness already testified that he has no private data concerning the first investigation. And all his testimonies will likely be based mostly solely on the data current within the NBI,” lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro interjected in the course of the trial.
Matibag defined on Tuesday that the NBI probe has two components. The primary was the investigation proper after the November 2024 press convention below a unique NBI head. The second probe, in the meantime, refers back to the particular job drive created by Matibag’s Administrative Order No. 11 final April.
Vinluan later went straight to his level: witnesses can solely testify to the data they’ve private data of. In the course of the trial, he requested Matibag concerning the rule on the restrictions of testimony, stating Part 22 of Rule 130 of the amended guidelines on proof.
“A witness can testify solely to these information which he or she is aware of of his or her private data; that’s, that are derived from his or her personal notion,” the supply said.
The protection’s level was that Matibag solely has private data as far as the second probe is anxious.
“Ang sinasabi natin is, pagdating do’n sa unang investigation na wala siyang private data, ‘yon po ay tinatawag nating rumour. So, ibig sabihin, wala kang private na kaalaman kasi hindi ka na-involve doon sa investigasyon na ‘yon,” protection spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa instructed reporters in a briefing.
(What we’re saying is, when it comes to the primary investigation, which he has no private data of, that’s rumour. This implies an individual has no private data as a result of that particular person was not concerned within the investigation.)
Testing Matibag’s credibility, ‘bias’
Much like previous impeachment trials, the protection group forged doubt on Matibag by testing his credibility and supposed bias.
“Ang level namin talaga is to check the credibility, take a look at kung could bias man o wala,” Poa stated. “We have been actually simply testing the credibility at kung could private bias ‘yong witness as a result of that may, syempre, have an effect on ‘yong integrity ng kaniyang mga naging testimonya or not less than ‘yong pagsasagawa ng imbestigasyon.”
(Our level is to check the credibility, take a look at if there’s bias or none. We have been actually simply testing the credibility, and if the witness has private bias, that may have an effect on the integrity of his testimony or his conduct of investigation.)
The protection additionally touched on Matibag’s private life, particularly on his incident with good friend Mel Sabio.
Final Could, Matibag was in sizzling water after his dialog together with his good friend leaked. Within the viral video, Matibag was arguing with Sabio over the telephone, and, at one level, the NBI director could possibly be heard allegedly threatening to hurt his good friend.
Nevertheless, Matibag and Sabio have already reconciled after the incident.
As to the alleged bias, the protection additionally highlighted that Matibag’s spouse, Laguna 1st District Consultant Ann Matibag, is among the many lawmakers who backed the articles of impeachment in opposition to Duterte.
Vinluan additionally introduced Matibag’s opinion article, “Inday Sara, The Bratinella,” which depicted the Vice President as a brat.
“Sure, my spouse is without doubt one of the endorsers of the impeachment,” Matibag stated in the course of the trial.
“My determination to be a witness is by advantage of a subpoena issued by the honorable courtroom and by invitation of the committee on justice, the prosecution. Nevertheless, the job of my spouse as a legislator is completely indifferent from me being the director of the Nationwide Bureau of Investigation,” he additional defined.
“We meant no offense, and I hope none was taken by Director Matibag. We respect that, besides that in cross-examinations, you actually have to check not simply the credibility but in addition bias,” Poa stated in a mixture of English and Filipino.
Objecting to Lascañas’ affidavit
The prosecution requested Matibag to learn parts of self-confessed Davao Loss of life Squad member Arturo Lascañas’ affidavit, which talked about the Vice President. This affidavit has been submitted to the Worldwide Prison Court docket as a part of the crimes in opposition to humanity case in opposition to Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte.
Lascañas named the Vice President over 5 instances in his affidavit. There, he claimed that that they had allegedly acquired kill orders from the previous president, then later, from Sara as Davao Metropolis mayor.
In one other occasion, Lascañas claimed that an abduction operation allegedly ordered by Sara had been relayed to him at one level.
For the protection, Matibag’s studying of the doc in the course of the trial was “extremely improper.”
“We already allowed the witness [to] not less than establish this doc. However as to the truth that he’s allowed to learn even parts thereof, he’s not the writer of this affidavit. And as to the reality or falsity thereof, [he’s] incompetent to testify on that. And it…already violates the rights of our consumer as a result of she’s being prejudiced by the studying of this affidavit,” Vinluan defined.
The impeachment courtroom allowed the protection’s movement to proceed its cross-examination of Matibag on Wednesday, July 22, to offer them extra time to review the Lascañas doc. – Rappler.com
