Video Summary - FULL - Cross-examination ng Defense team ni VP Sara kay NBI Dir. Melvin Matibag

Summary of the Cross-Examination and Key Points

The chair explains a delay in approving the “journal” covering the proceedings, particularly from July 20, 2022.
Approval is needed so parties have time to pursue remedies regarding the chair’s ruling from the previous day.
The defense is permitted to continue cross-examination.

NBI Director Melvin Matibag confirms his general role as head of the bureau and that he can issue subpoenas.
He repeatedly states he was appointed as NBI director only in February 2026, so he cannot claim personal knowledge of earlier investigation stages conducted before he took office.
The defense challenges whether:
- subpoenas were issued to multiple individuals/media personalities, and
- Matibag signed those subpoenas.
Matibag consistently answers that he did not sign the subpoenas and generally cannot recall the specific details.
The prosecutors/proceedings acknowledge and document the limitation: his testimony on the prior investigation is based on records and briefing discussions, not personal attendance.

The defense confronts Matibag with hard copies (with previously shown items also appearing on a screen).
There is a dispute over superimposed “XX” marks on documents displayed for illustration.
- Objections are raised that the markings could mislead viewers.
The court allows clarification and permits the documents to be shown/marked as part of the case record.

The defense focuses on a virtual press conference (VP Sara) dated November 23, 2024, which the NBI used as material for its investigation.
Matibag is asked whether he personally watched the entire video:
- He indicates he reviewed it sufficiently to answer,
- while the defense challenges how deeply he personally based his testimony on the video.
The defense also questions alleged statements in the press conference relating to various corruption issues and alleged wrongdoing.

The defense asks about House Resolution No. 989 (articles of impeachment against VP Sara) and whether Matibag’s wife is an endorser.
Matibag acknowledges that his wife’s name appears as an endorser.
He explains:
- his testimony is connected to his subpoena/invitation, and
- his wife’s legislative role is separate from his duty as NBI director.
While relevance is debated, the court permits the matter as credibility testing.

The defense presses whether the NBI has found or filed any formal matter regarding “contracting a killer/assassination” allegedly raised in the VP Sara press conference.
Matibag states that as of that time there was:
- no subpoena yet (and he implies insufficient basis/no formal charge for that specific allegation).
He explains that NBI work submitted to the DOJ involves:
- grave threats and inciting to sedition, not “contracting for assassination.”
He characterizes the assassination-related aspect as a continuing/open investigation.

The defense argues that because investigation leads are ongoing and involve “persons of interest,” Matibag’s testimony could be premature and risk prejudice to the ongoing inquiry.
The proceedings frame it as an active, continuing investigation and indicate some details are classified or not yet fully disclosed.

The defense introduces letters and related correspondence, including references to an alleged FBI-related meeting/coordination and attendance plans.
Matibag is also questioned about editorials he authored in Daily Tribune criticizing VP Sara, including wording such as “public trust crumbles.”
The defense shows a Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey (reported as cited by Daily Tribune) indicating VP Sara’s positive trust rating (57%), and asks whether this affects the investigation or whether “betrayal of public trust” remains valid.
Matibag responds that:
- surveys are snapshots and do not control how the investigation should proceed, and
- the editorial statements should be treated as opinion writing.

The defense moves for a continuance, citing:
1. new topics introduced in testimony that the defense claims were not part of the impeachment articles, requiring time for proper cross-examination, and
2. a 100-page document introduced during direct that is alleged to have been unsigned and unnotarized, with a claim that more time is needed for intelligent cross.
The prosecutor objects, arguing the defense has cross-examined extensively and should finish that day, with redirect if allowed.
The chair indicates the request is under consideration and appears inclined to grant the continuance.

VP Sara Duterte
Director Melvin Matibag (NBI Director; witness)
Defense counsel for respondent (not named in subtitles)
Lead prosecutor / lead council correspondent (not named in subtitles)
Assistant council for respondent (not named in subtitles)
Assistant council for the prosecution (not named in subtitles)
Council for the respondent / panel of prosecutors (not named in subtitles)
Congresswoman Luistro (mentioned)
FBI Director Cash Patel (mentioned)
Chris Hernandez (mentioned)
Henry Kimble (mentioned)
Dempsey Reyes (Philippine Daily Inquirer; mentioned)
Red Mendoza (Manila Times; mentioned)
Anna Rosario Melindui (Manila Times; mentioned)
Jason Rodrigo (SNMI/SMNI; mentioned)
Mikail Flores (Reuters; mentioned)
Trixie Cruz-Angeles (mentioned)
Fred Mendoza (Manila Times; mentioned)
Bonsambbul (Rappler; mentioned)
Mel Sabi / Mel Sabio (mentioned)
GMA News / video proceedings references (implied by context, not named as a person)