‘As to what the DOJ will do on the complaints filed by the NBI, they don’t have anything to do with the problem on this case. The query is whether or not the Vice President betrayed public belief by contracting an murderer to kill the President,’ says Home prosecution counsel Amando Ligutan
MANILA, Philippines – The protection workforce of Sara Duterte poked holes within the investigation of the Nationwide Bureau of Investigation (NBI) into the Vice President’s alleged threats in opposition to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the course of the impeachment trial’s fourth day.
Protection lawyer Mark Vinluan, throughout his hours-long cross-examination on Monday, July 13, highlighted the alleged inconsistencies within the NBI probe. This was important to the trial because the fourth article of impeachment — grave threats in opposition to the President, First Girl Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Home speaker Martin Romualdez — was initially hinged on the NBI probe.
The NBI forwarded its criticism to the Division of Justice (DOJ) on January 30, 2025, alleging that Duterte’s violation constituted three counts of grave threats and one rely of inciting to sedition. However in a certification dated February 5, 2025, the DOJ returned the NBI’s advice and stated it lacked essential proof.
So, if the NBI did an investigation and sought witnesses, why did the DOJ return the criticism? Vinluan requested.
Prosecution witness and former NBI cybercrime division chief Jeremy Lotoc stated the DOJ returned their criticism as a result of it requested for extra proof, together with extra affidavits from NBI brokers. Lotoc is now the regional director of the NBI Bangsamoro Administrative Area in Muslim Mindanao.
One other level Vinluan assailed was the inconsistency of the dates. One of many NBI’s investigative types was initially dated February 12, 2025, primarily based on the DOJ’s receiving stamp, however was manually revised to January 30, the protection lawyer alleged.
“There’s a stamp, Division of Justice acquired. However it seems that it was initially stamped February 12, 2025. However there’s a marking, a guide marking that transformed it to January 30, [2025],” Vinluan stated.
The protection lawyer additionally identified alleged discrepancies within the docket numbers of the NBI paperwork. The criticism, in addition to the DOJ certification, had two completely different docket numbers.
“All of those have been subpoenaed once more from the NBI…. So, these have been transmitted to the Home committee on justice by subpoena…. And this was the premise that was utilized by the Home committee on justice in submitting the articles of impeachment earlier than this Senate impeachment court docket,” Vinluan stated.
However throughout a question-and-answer session with Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros, Lotoc stated the grave threats allegations in opposition to the Vice President nonetheless stand regardless of the alleged inconsistencies or adjustments.
For opposing counsel Amando Ligutan, lawyer for the Home prosecution workforce, the alleged discrepancies don’t have any bearing on the impeachment itself.
“As to what the court docket will do, as to what the DOJ will do on the complaints filed by the NBI, they don’t have anything to do with the problem on this case. The query is whether or not the Vice President betrayed public belief by contracting an murderer to kill the President,” Ligutan stated throughout his objection to Vinluan’s cross-examination.
Biased probe?
Vinluan, throughout his cross-examination, inquired if Marcos had a hand within the NBI probe into Duterte. The protection lawyer famous the NBI’s connection to the President: the NBI is an hooked up bureau of the DOJ, and the DOJ chief is answerable to the President.
Nevertheless, Lotoc stated it’s inside their mandate to probe alleged threats in opposition to high-ranking officers, together with the President. He stated the NBI might even do it motu proprio or on their very own initative.
Part 5(g) of Republic Act No. 10867 or the Nationwide Bureau of Investigation Reorganization and Modernization Act states, “[Probe] instances involving threats to safety or assaults in opposition to the individuals of the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the Home of Representatives, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Courtroom.”
“Did BBM (Bongbong Marcos), at any level, intervene within the investigation?” Vinluan requested. “After all not, sir,” Lotoc stated.
So, if the NBI investigated the alleged threats in opposition to Marcos, did it do the identical for the Vice President? In keeping with the protection workforce, there was an “Oplan Romanov” or alleged risk in opposition to Duterte’s life and her household.
Lotoc stated they carried out a motu proprio investigation, too, for the Vice President, however discovered no concrete risk.
“Once more, since wala kaming validated info, wala kaming nakitang confirmed doon sa allegation at threats in opposition to her life, wala kaming napagsimulan (Once more, since we didn’t discover validated info, we didn’t affirm something on the allegation and the threats in opposition to her life, we didn’t begin any proceedings),” the NBI official stated.
Through the trial, Vinluan additionally raised a number of typographical errors within the affidavits utilized by the NBI for its criticism. He additionally requested if the bureau used templates for the affidavits.
“Once more, you’ll be able to ask the one who signed the affidavit,” Lotoc stated, referring to the signatories within the affidavits. – Rappler.com
