LIVE | Impeachment hearing of VP Sara Duterte - Day 4 #VPSaraonTrial (July 13, 2026)

Summary of Day 4 – VP Sara Duterte Impeachment Hearing (July 13, 2026)

Auto-generated subtitles describe proceedings focused largely on the prosecution’s second witness (NBI cybercrime official Attorney Jeremy S. Lotok), with extensive disputes over evidence, subpoenas, and document/date issues. The day’s highlights include:

1) Court session opening and quorum/journal approval

• The impeachment court was formally called to order with Senate leadership present.
• Quorum was declared (numerous senator-judges present).
• The July 8, 2026 journal was dispensed with / considered approved.

2) Defense cross-questions on an “Operation Romanov” claim

• Senator-judges questioned the defense regarding “Operation Romanov”, said to be tied to alleged threats.
• Discussion centered on whether a blogger/influencer (“Princess Maui”) referenced the operation and whether the defense would present that person as a witness.
• The defense stated it would depend on trial developments, with details to be handled through evidence.

3) Scheduling dispute: NBI Director Melvin Matibag testimony

• The prosecution moved to advance the testimony of NBI Director Melvin Matibag, citing a coordinated regional summit involving the FBI/Thai police that conflicts with the schedule.
• Defense and a senator-judge raised concerns about:
  • whether proper subpoenas/notices had been issued,
  • whether the timing violated notice norms,
  • and whether it was improper for a bureau head to “dictate” availability.
• The court deferred ruling pending submission of the letter/invitation/travel documents.
• The court later approved a motion to bring Matibag the next day, listed as Monday at 2:00 p.m. (with continued testimony depending on cross).

4) Prosecution’s witness: Attorney Jeremy S. Lotok (NBI cybercrime)

The prosecution presented Lotok to support claims that VP Sara Duterte’s remarks were serious threats, and that the NBI investigation found sufficient grounds for grave threats and inciting sedition.

A) Lotok’s investigation methodology and evidence handling

• Lotok testified the NBI cybercrime team followed four stages:
  1. identification/preservation of digital evidence
  2. collection/hashing
  3. analysis/attribution
  4. legal evaluation/case filing
• He said the investigation relied on:
  • an online press conference (Nov. 23, 2024), and
  • later review of earlier press content (Oct. 18, 2024).

B) Core prosecution theory: threats were “real and serious,” not joking

• The prosecution argued the VP’s statements about “contracting a person” to kill officials were not mere humor.
• Lotok emphasized factors used to conclude the utterances were serious/actual, including:
  • delivery/manner (he characterized the mood as furious/fuming),
  • literal meaning/intent,
  • persistence (alleged determination, repeated rhetoric),
  • the relationship and context between VP and President (language described as a “toxic relationship”),
  • and reactions from recipients, especially the President and key government bodies.

C) Government agencies treated it as an “active threat”

Lotok testified agencies responded seriously, including:

• PCO (Presidential Communications Office): classified as an active threat; directed security command to investigate.
• PNP: described the matter as grave and referenced an “assassin” (as characterized in the subtitles).
• National Security Council and AFP: similarly treated threats as serious/national security matters.

D) Earlier statements were used to show pattern/consistency

• Lotok said NBI reviewed Oct. 18, 2024 statements (including “toxic relationship” and other violent imagery) and compared them with Nov. 23 statements to establish patterns and potential intent.

E) Result of NBI fact-finding

• Lotok testified the NBI executed an affidavit of investigation and recommended criminal charges:
  • grave threats (multiple counts)
  • inciting to sedition (at least one count)
• He said the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued certifications indicating compliance with requirements for preliminary investigation (though subtitles later reflect major disputes about whether timing and case buildup were sufficient).

5) Heavy cross-examination disputes: subpoenas, affidavit defects, docket numbers, and dates

Defense cross included multiple challenges:

A) Verification and authenticity issues

• Defense argued many exhibits were photocopies, not originals/certified copies.
• They questioned whether the NBI provided all annexes/attachments and whether portions were missing from affidavit packaging.

B) DOJ “case buildup” vs “sufficient for preliminary investigation”

• Defense highlighted that DOJ initially found the referral insufficient and required case buildup, then later certified the revised submission as sufficient.
• Lotok generally maintained that deficiencies were addressed through compliance submissions and attachments.

C) Date discrepancies and receipt stamps (including January 30 vs Feb. 10 / Feb. 3 issues)

A major portion of cross focused on:

• inconsistencies in stamps/receipt dates,
• execution dates on investigation data forms,
• docket/reference number discrepancies, and
• allegations that documents could have been altered or mishandled. Lotok repeatedly stated he lacked personal knowledge about DOJ stamping/receipt changes, but affirmed the filings and attachments existed in the record.

D) Impartiality questions and “BBM control/bias” insinuation

• Defense attempted to argue NBI/DOJ structures implied political influence, given that the President (“BBM”) is above both agencies.
• Lotok responded that NBI acted under statutory authority and evidence, and that threats were investigated through primary jurisdiction and DOJ direction.

E) Threat assessment and whether NBI fully assessed context

• Defense asked whether the NBI’s focus was narrow—showing only portions of the full video during interviews—and whether sufficient context from relevant parties was gathered.
• Lotok defended the process as targeted to evidence and interviews, while acknowledging limitations where personal knowledge was absent (e.g., exactly what video portions were shown).

6) Court administration and adjournment

• The court paused/broke and later continued until late in the day.
• Defense requested to adjourn overnight / continue cross later due to length and fatigue.
• The hearing was adjourned until 2:00 p.m. of Tuesday, July 14, 2026, for continuation of defense cross-examination and remaining scheduled matters.

7) Scheduling of remaining witnesses

The court noted the next witnesses online were:

• Attorney Zulika Lopez (expected next after Attorney Lotok’s direct/cross/redirect sequence, per scheduling)
• Captain Bellow (also expected later depending on trial flow)

---

Presenters / Contributors (as named in subtitles)

Senate / impeachment court officials

• Senate President Chalian (Cherent Tiger Chalian)
• Presiding Officer Senator Judges Scod(o) (name appears as “Scodo/Scader(o)” in subtitles; presiding role attributed to “Senator Judges Scodo”)
• Senate President (also appears as) Gachalian
• Senator Judges (multiple names listed with subtitle errors): JVRO, Aino, Alan Kayano, Amy Marcos, Del Rossa, Eersto, Estrada, Go, Ottoveros, Laxon, Lapid, Legarda, Marcetta, Marcos, Padilia, Pangilinan, Sto III, Tulfo Irwin, Tulfo Rafi, Villainovva, Villar Camille, Villar Mark, Zubiri, Villanovva, Ersito, Onos, Makino, Zubiri (repeated/varied listing)

Witness and legal counsels

• Attorney Jeremy S. Lotok (NBI; prosecution witness)
• Attorney Mark Vidan (defense counsel; referenced)
• Attorney Vin Luan / Vin Luan Sabin (appears as respondent counsel in parts of subtitles; name varies with subtitle errors)
• Attorney Virgil Legan (prosecution counsel recognized to introduce witness; name appears as “Legan/Leutan/Luto/Leutan”)
• Attorney Zelica Lopez / Zulika Lopez (next online witness; name varies)
• Captain Bellow (next online witness; name varies)

Other contributors referenced

• NBI Director Melvin A. Matibag
• Princess Maui (referenced in the “Operation Romanov” line)
• Media personalities subpoenaed/interviewed (names in subtitles, with possible subtitle errors): Reyes (Philippine Daily Inquirer), Marquy J. Mendoza (Manila Times), Bones Magol (Rappler), Anna Rosario Melindui (Manila Times), Jason Rubrico (SMI), Mika Flores (Reuters), plus other agents listed such as John Mark Khalilong, Vanessa Asunion, etc.