FULL: Continuation of cross-exam on prosec’s witness NBI Dir. Matibag on impeachment trial Day 9

[00:00:00]Thank you sir. Good afternoon and council correspondent may proceed when you're ready sir.

[00:00:04]>> Your honor considering the interpolations yesterday by the senator judges and to give time also for more interpolations today if any just we'll just go over uh several cross points your honor. Um you may proceed sir and as instructed by the chair yesterday the um interjections and interventions of senator judges shall be after the uh cross redirect and recross if any you may proceed sir.

[00:00:31]>> Uh good afternoon again director Matibag.

[00:00:33]>> Good afternoon sir.

[00:00:36]Dr. Matibag, in relation to article 4 of this articles of impeachment, you were likewise subpoenaed by the House Committee on Justice to attend its mini trial. Correct?

[00:00:48]>> Yes, sir.

[00:00:50]>> Was it uh a subpoena?

[00:00:51]>> Objection, your honor.

[00:00:52]>> Ask and answer.

[00:00:54]>> Ask and answered.

[00:00:55]>> Uh was it a subpoena ad testificandum or dus teum or both? Uh I recall that this is uh and you appeared uh on various dates but you appeared on April 29, 2026.

[00:01:14]Correct?

[00:01:15]>> April uh April 29. Yes, sir.

[00:01:17]>> All right. Now, you issued administrative order number 11 on April 16, 2026. Correct.

[00:01:24]>> Yes, sir.

[00:01:25]So AO1 was issued only 13 days prior your appearance before the mini trial.

[00:01:33]>> So April 16 29 minus that's about it 13 or 12 days sir.

[00:01:38]>> All right and this was one of the documents that you submitted by virtue.

[00:01:42]>> Your honor >> I have no question your honor.

[00:01:45]>> Yes your honor but I just want to enter a continuing objection to the use of mini trial. It was never a mini trial.

[00:01:51]It is a clarificatory hearing. Your honor, uh, just a short rejoinder. Uh, isn't it, May proceed, council?

[00:01:58]>> Uh, isn't it, uh, with all due respect, isn't it, uh, Representative Luis Tro who termed uh, such proceeding as mini trial? We just want to inquire of, uh, Representative Lro.

[00:02:10]>> May I respond, your honor?

[00:02:12]>> The lead prosecutor may respond thereafter. We we shall continue. Yes.

[00:02:15]What is your response, council? The prosecution has been very consistent that what we did in the committee on justice of the House of Representatives is never a mini trial. It is a clarificatory hearing consistent to the House rules on impeachment and even consistent to the provisions of article 11 of the constitution.

[00:02:42]The continuing objection of council lead prosecutor is Julie um noted in regard to the line and words used by council correspondent. Council correspondent may proceed. All right. Uh so going back this was one of the documents that you submitted by virtue of the subina correct AO number 11.

[00:03:05]>> Yes. Uh, in fact, AO number 11 was first mentioned in public during that April 29, 2026 hearing. Correct.

[00:03:15]>> Uh, in that hearing, yes, I but I never I cannot recall if it's uh been made public before.

[00:03:21]>> But you mentioned it in that hearing.

[00:03:23]>> I think it was mentioned. Yes, sir.

[00:03:25]>> Now, AO1 pertains to the creation of a special task force. Is it that?

[00:03:32]>> Yes, sir.

[00:03:32]>> All right. And according to the whereas clause and I will read it and I'll quote it. It says threats to the life of the president constitute a grave offense with far-reaching implications on national stability, public safety and the continuity of government. Do you confirm this?

[00:03:54]>> Um your s request for a copy of the document. So can I so that I can examine it?

[00:04:00]>> Very well.

[00:04:01]May I ask my co-consel your honor to provide uh a direct?

[00:04:04]>> Assisting council correspondent may approach. Likewise, existing council for the prosecutor may approach the witness.

[00:04:13]>> Yes, sir.

[00:04:13]>> All right. My question is this.

[00:04:16]Our threats to the life of the vice president constitute a grave offense with far-reaching implications on national stability, public safety, and the continuity of government.

[00:04:31]>> Your honor, objection, please.

[00:04:34]>> Run for the objection.

[00:04:35]>> The question of the defense is a speculative >> um overruled witness may answer. uh the threat to the president and all other high government officials like the senate president, the chief justice, the speaker of the house or any other officers is a threat to the national security and threat to public safety.

[00:04:55]>> All right. Very well. Now, did you create a special task force to investigate on the threats to the life of BP Sara?

[00:05:05]>> There was none to my recollection.

[00:05:07][clears throat] So um let us recall the interview of uh interview of Dempsey Reyes of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

[00:05:20]This is part your honor of annex G9 of the articles of impeachment and please direct your attention to paragraph 13 of the minutes of the meeting and allow me to read number 13. Are you aware of the threats?

[00:05:34]Your honor, please may we confront the witness with the document.

[00:05:38]>> Very well, your honor.

[00:05:40]>> Um >> uh we will provide the hard copy and we will display also or flash on the screen a soft copy of such.

[00:05:46]>> Assisting council for both parties may approach the bench and um confront the witness with a copy of the document that the uh council for the respondent is um referring to.

[00:05:57]>> Kindly proceed council.

[00:05:58]>> All right. It says uh paragraph 13 or question and answer number 13. Are you aware of the threats? Answer earlier than that according to her speaker. That was during a press conference the day before November 22.

[00:06:19]So my question is are you can you confirm that this is part of the NBI's own records?

[00:06:25]>> Uh it reflected on the investigation report. So I presume it is.

[00:06:30]>> All right. So this is information regarding the threats to the life of VP Sara is it not threat.

[00:06:42]>> And when you became NBI director in February 20, 2026, did you conduct a motorop investigation to help her?

[00:06:52]>> I was informed by the investigating officers that it was considered the threat that was mentioned to the vice president. In fact, personalities were subpoenenaed including the vice president two times in order to to aid the national group investigation in this investigation. However, to noel, there was no attendance from the personalities that was invited.

[00:07:15]>> All right. So, let me clarify under your leadership already did the NBI sub VP Sara for this? We never subween it because uh we noticed that uh every time a proper subwinas was issued to the vice president, she will never attend a subwina.

[00:07:32]>> And your basis for saying that is the subpoena connected to the first investigation.

[00:07:38]Correct.

[00:07:39]>> Not only that, in a lot of proceedings including the proceeding in the impeachment of the House of Representatives, I noticed that she never attended.

[00:07:47]>> So that was your motivation for not sub issuing a subpoena. Anyway, under your leadership, >> your honor, please may I move to strike from the record the word motivation. The witness never said motivation.

[00:08:01]>> Um, let it remain in the record. Um, witness may council may proceed.

[00:08:05]>> All right. So, under your leadership, did the NBI subpoena former speaker Martin, but do you intend to issue a subpoena against him? Actually, when we're investigating the issue, the 18 Marines, if the 18 Marines was able to issue their statement properly, we intend to subpoena Speaker Martin Ramaldez.

[00:08:29]>> Okay. So, under your leadership, did the NBI subpoena those who were present during that November 22 press?

[00:08:40]>> There are some personalities that were sub. In fact, uh I noticed that you have presented the SA yesterday.

[00:08:46]>> Yeah. But isn't it that those subpoenas were under the leadership of director Sanjiago?

[00:08:51]>> Well, as to the investigation of the at that time, uh it was already been subject of a resolution pending before the department of justice.

[00:08:59]>> So, in other words, uh in so far as the threats to alleged threats to the president, uh there is an ongoing investigation.

[00:09:10]But in terms of the alleged threats against the vice president, there's no ongoing investigation >> because there's a big differential, honor.

[00:09:20]>> Okay. Uh how about Princess Maui, for example, from the November 23 press? Was she subpoenaed under your leadership?

[00:09:30]>> Ask and answered question, your honor.

[00:09:32]>> This is the first time about Princess Maui, your honor.

[00:09:34]>> Your honor, it has been asked already during the cross.

[00:09:37]>> No, the the ground is correct. asked and answered, meaning the witness already answered. No, he did not.

[00:09:45]>> All right.

[00:09:46]>> So, may proceed.

[00:09:48][clears throat] >> But you mentioned a while ago that you there were two uh subpoenas issued against VP Sara. Correct.

[00:09:55]>> Yes, sir. Because on the record that was turned over to >> Yeah. But that those two subpoenas were issued by former director NBI Sanago and not under your leadership.

[00:10:03]>> By the National Bureau of Investigation.

[00:10:05]Yes. under the leadership of uh director Sanjago >> but just to clarify under your leadership no subpoena >> the subpoena >> ask answered your honor >> as answered move on council >> all right I'll move on now you mentioned yesterday that for grave threats and inciting to sedition uh these are still pending before the DOJ >> ask and answered your honor >> asked and answered council >> you likewise mentioned yesterday that you have an ongoing investigation And my just my question is is this for the alleged contracting for the assassination?

[00:10:44]>> Yes, that is very I was able to explain that yesterday.

[00:10:47]>> Okay. And particularly uh the ongoing investigation pertain to the leads that you have to the alleged person that VP Sara talked to >> among others your honor. But no subpoena has been issued to such alleged person under your leadership >> because we are under a case buildup status. It is an ongoing investigation as mentioned yesterday sir.

[00:11:10]>> Okay. Now uh let me just clarify in a subpoena the NBI must specifically identify the felony or crime for which you are issuing the subpoena. Is that not the case?

[00:11:25]>> Yes we provide what is the crime that we will investigate. Okay. Very well. So here what will be the felony or crime that will be indicated in the subpoena?

[00:11:35]>> But you have to remember we are also have the mandate to protect the constitution to protect the peace and order and if [clears throat] it goes to the national security and peace and order we are also mandated to investigate.

[00:11:47]>> Your your honor um with all due respect your honor the answer was not responsive. My answer was very specific and my question was very specific. What will be the felony or crime that will be indicated in the subject?

[00:11:59]>> Witness will please answer. The question was simple. What is the crime if any um or penalty in relation to the document being asked by the council? We all know that there is no crime uh that committed when there's a plan to kill until it is executed. But what I'm saying that's why I'm qualifying is because one of the mandates of the National Bureau of Investigation is pro to protect the national security and we're also mandated to issue a subpoena for an investigation to do so. So in this case we cannot issue an a subina we can issue an invitation for those persons of interest. Uh so no you cannot issue a subpoena but just an invitation. In other words, uh this is not under the jurisdiction of the NBI. Correct.

[00:12:46]>> It is within the power of the NBI to protect the national interest and the national security. And as mentioned, there is a continuing threat to the president and under section G section 5 of the Republic of 10867.

[00:13:03]It is one of the primary duty of the NBI to protect the security of the president.

[00:13:08]>> All right. Um yesterday you also mentioned uh betrayal of public trust.

[00:13:13]Correct.

[00:13:14]>> That is correct.

[00:13:15]>> Um can that be indicated in the subpoena when you issue it against this alleged person?

[00:13:23]>> It can be or it can be not. But why why will we put the subject betrayal of public trust if the person being subina is not uh being tried for betrayal of public trust?

[00:13:33]>> What if you what if it's against the vice president? Just to just to clarify, can the subpoena indicate betrayal of public trust?

[00:13:43]We cannot uh put that because that is not a subject of a case under the repi penal porn for a crime. The betrayal of public trust is the variable subject of an impeachment court.

[00:13:55]>> All right. So you admit nonetheless that betrayal of public trust is a ground for impeachment. Correct.

[00:14:02]>> That is correct. I think it's in the constitution. And are you saying that once you reach your findings because we're all uh waiting for for that you will is it correct to say that you will file another impeachment case against VP Sara?

[00:14:15]>> Oh thank you for that question so that >> your honor that is speculative.

[00:14:20]>> I think the witness is confident enough and in fact thank the council for his question. Um I'm interested to hear what um the witness will also answer.

[00:14:29]>> Thank you Mr. Presiding officer. the betrayal of public trust as the issue in the impeachment court. We don't need to investigate even if we pinpointed the person contracted because the point being is the betrayal of public trust was already been consumated when she publicly admitted. There is already an admission that she contracted a killer, a mama mate to or assassin to kill the president and that itself is already an admission.

[00:15:08]That constitute betrayal of public. Why?

[00:15:11]Because the oath of office of the president, she will execute the law and do justice to everyone. So, That is no justice to every man. It's not execute the law, execute the president.

[00:15:30]>> Your honor, uh with all due respect, your honor, uh I am I know that NBA director took pains in explaining his answer, but uh those his answer already contains con conclusions of fact and law. And may we ask your honor, >> may I respond, your honor?

[00:15:45]>> I'm not yet. In keeping, your honor, with this court's ruling uh last week, may we ask your honor that it be stricken off the record. Your honor, my answer was pretty simple.

[00:15:55]>> Council for the rather the lead prosecution.

[00:15:57]>> My question was pretty simple. Honor betrayal of public trust.

[00:16:15]Betrayal of public trust to execute the president, the first lady and the former speaker. That's precisely the ground for our um motion. Your honor, can we get the ruling?

[00:16:30]>> The motion to strike off is denied. Let the answer of the witness remain in the records. That was his answer. Um councel, however um um interpretative it may seem with respect to the law since the since the witness was qualified yesterday as not only being the NBI director but also engaged in the legal profession for decades and is in fact a former Ludin.

[00:16:53]Let that remain in the records for the consideration of the senator judges. Um, you may proceed, council.

[00:16:59]>> All right. My question is this. Are you conducting your ongoing investigation to substantiate this current impeachment case?

[00:17:10]again with all due respect uh detctor simple yes or no will do can you can you rephrase your question council >> so are you conducting the ongoing investigation to substantiate this current impeachment case >> no need to substantiate because it's already been established >> all right now >> the answer.

[00:17:41]You are not investigating anything in connection with the current ongoing impeachment case.

[00:17:47]>> Yes, because it's been already been established.

[00:17:50]>> All right, proceed. Council, in so far as the leads to this alleged person, uh do you share information to the cyber crime division?

[00:18:01]Cyber Crime Division of Cyber [clears throat] Crime Division.

[00:18:19]All right. So, because after all the cyber crime division is partner, please >> what's the question? What's the objection?

[00:18:26]>> May we know if the defense is making a manifestation or raising a question? I am going to the question.

[00:18:31]>> He was about to um ask a question I believe. Council um let's allow him to finish his question. Council may proceed for the respondent because the cyber crime is part of the special task force.

[00:18:41]Correct.

[00:18:42]>> That is correct po.

[00:18:43]>> How about agent Lotok in particular? Do you share uh the leads to this alleged person with him?

[00:18:52]Special task but wasn't he part of the cyber crime division as well?

[00:18:58]regional director.

[00:19:01]Yes. But he was once part of the cyber crime division director.

[00:19:06]Now let's let's go to the special task force that you mentioned. You have one team leader and two assistant team leaders in your special task force.

[00:19:15]Correct.

[00:19:17]And then how many members from the NCR?

[00:19:28]director. But but you mentioned that uh they they are members of the special task force. In your estimation, how many from the NCR are involved? NCR we give the freedom to the regional director for purposes of doing a particular investigation in relation to the said task force. Uh your honor uh may we respectfully again ask uh that the court give a directive to director Matibag to give a more responsive answer. My question is how many? So he can >> Yeah, I commend your honor.

[00:20:05]>> Um council for the respondent. The question was how many? The answer of the good director was it depends and it would depend on the NCR um regional director how many he would assign. Um witness will answer if he knows if he does not he may so he may so respond as well.

[00:20:25]>> Uh Mr. Presiding officer sir the the thing is depending operation or surveillance we give independence and autonomy regional director that's why special task force It already transcends to an issue of national security. Okay. So you cannot give a number.

[00:21:02]>> Your honor depending it depends.

[00:21:06]Let the let the presiding officer um ask a clarificatory question.

[00:21:12]mutually exclusive.

[00:21:19]So national Yes, your honor.

[00:21:42]>> So, is it correct to state that at any one time that number will change? Exact.

[00:21:47]You may proceed, [clears throat] council. All right. So, that's for the NCR. Is it the same case for the cyber crime division or the CCD?

[00:21:59]But uh just to clarify, I'll go through it one by one. So it's the same for the organized transnational crime division.

[00:22:05]Ganun din.

[00:22:06]>> All right. For the technical intelligence division standard procedure for the digital forensic laboratory or DFL.

[00:22:15]>> All right. Now are these members of this special task force given additional salary for their work for the special task force? I think that is not allowed under the law.

[00:22:32]They're basically working with a task special task force for free.

[00:22:43]So in other words, that's already part of their main job description.

[00:22:46]>> I think that's how the government system work respectfully.

[00:22:50]>> All right. Now yesterday you brought confidential records regarding your leads. Correct po.

[00:22:56]>> Did you bring those records again po?

[00:23:01]>> And are these records from the special task force poala poala? All right.

[00:23:07][clears throat] And you you mentioned that you cannot share these records to the public. Is that the case?

[00:23:16]All right. Now, if the honorable court issues a subpoena, will you comply?

[00:23:27]All right. Don't you believe that?

[00:23:45]I think your honor, the question is already argumentative.

[00:23:51]>> I'll just move on to a new point.

[00:23:52]Anyway, during the time of director Sanchiago and let me lay the basis no around 15 months they didn't identify the alleged person that PP Sara talked to and based on your testimony yesterday it will take 3 to 6 months even more for this special task force to come up with definite findings as to the identity of this alleged person. Correct.

[00:24:18]326 even more.

[00:24:21]>> Uh okay. Well, we'll just check uh the transcript for that. But at any rate, will this task force continue to exist and operate until you finally identify this alleged person or does it have a time limit?

[00:24:40]So as long as um you cannot provide a concrete uh output the the task special task force will continue to exist.

[00:24:50]>> Ask and answered your honor.

[00:24:51]>> As answered move on council.

[00:24:55]>> All right. By the way does NBI have intelligence funds?

[00:25:00]>> Well, sir. All right. Now you also mentioned about the rage coalition event yesterday in club Filipino on April 12, 2026. Correct. Tama po.

[00:25:11]>> All right. Now this was already around 14 months from VP Sara's press conf.

[00:25:18]>> Now my question to you is this. Was VP Sara present in that April 12, 2026 event? Wala po sir.

[00:25:27]>> All right. No. Now you mentioned also uh the concept of kinetic force. Can you recall?

[00:25:36]>> Yes sir.

[00:25:37]>> All right. Now my question to you is this. Despite the lapse of 14 months and the absence of VP Sara in that event, you still concluded that this event was still part of what you call kinetic force. Is that the case?

[00:25:55]>> All right. And based on your findings, this kinetic force came from VP Sara's November 23, 2024 press. Correct.

[00:26:10]Statement. I want to cut his head.

[00:26:23]All right. So you mentioned also that there was a participant in a PBBM PBBM rally that shouted.

[00:26:34]When did when did this happen if you can recall?

[00:26:50]Can you recall the date of that? uh of that event you said recall but is this also part of the kinetic force that you mentioned how about under secretary cla Castro in Canada is this also part of the kinetic force irrelevant your honor I'm trying to lay the basis your witness may Yes, sir.

[00:27:18]Well, So the answer is yes. It's part of the kinetic force. So in other words, this kinetic force can reach foreign countries.

[00:27:50]That's okay. Now how about the flood control rallies? Is this part of the kinetic force?

[00:27:56]>> Flood control rally now.

[00:27:59]Flood control rally controlally probably uh [snorts] I'll just move on. So any disscent against the government must be attributed to this kinetic force. Is that what you're saying?

[00:28:22]>> Speculative your honor. Witness may answer if he knows.

[00:28:40]All right. Now, isn't it that Mayor Bast that participant in that PBBM event, the rallies in Canada and the flood control rallies, don't they have a mind of of their own?

[00:28:55]>> Your honor, we are objecting on the ground of vague.

[00:28:58]Kindly clarify the question.

[00:29:00]>> Your honor, the the >> kindly reform council. Um I also did not quite get um the question. Kindly reform council. So are you saying that these people that I mentioned they cannot act independently and is are compelled by the kinetic force that you mentioned?

[00:29:18]Mayor Baste, the participant in the PBBM rally. The rally is in Canada and the flood control rallies.

[00:29:27]Una po. There's no PBM rally.

[00:29:29]>> No, no, sorry. PBBM event. Sorry. PBM eventual.

[00:29:42]Yes, your honor. Please may we request clarification from the defense? I think the question director is um kinetic energy So we have to qualify we have to treat each event independently and apply the five factor test that we are being applying your council member proceed. All right.

[00:30:35]My question is this. Is this kinetic force still active today or has it stopped?

[00:30:45]And should we really stop this kinetic force or just allow it until 2028?

[00:30:54]Uh anyway, I'll withdraw that question.

[00:30:56]Just move on to a different question. Is this kinetic force a legal concept?

[00:31:13]establish national threat assessment.

[00:31:16]>> Again, uh just a manifestation that it's not responsive, but I'll just move on to a different point.

[00:31:22]>> Your honor, please.

[00:31:23]>> Um what is the pleasure of the read council?

[00:31:25]>> The defense is making a side comment to the answer of the witness. Can we please remind him to avoid making side comment as previously invoked by the impeachment court?

[00:31:38]>> Then I will then I will uh raise another motion your honor that uh the witness's answer is not responsive.

[00:31:46]>> Councils, let this not be a debate between and amongst the two parties. Let the witness answer and give his testimony. Council, you may proceed.

[00:31:53]>> All right. Was the rage uh coalition event a political rally?

[00:32:07]Speaker. All right. And as a lawyer and as a former former dean ba director or current dean? A >> former So as a lawyer and a former dean, you are aware that political speech is constitutionally protected. Correct?

[00:32:23]you have to qualify and unless we are under martial law again, Mayor Bastet should be able to freely express his descent to the government.

[00:32:31]>> Your honor, that is a speculative.

[00:32:34]>> Um, let the witness answer. Um, he is confident to answer that question.

[00:32:43]But the freedom of expression has limitation also.

[00:32:53]freedom of expression. All right. But my question to you is this. Did he directly urged the people to overthrow the government in that rally?

[00:33:10]related.

[00:33:21]>> But that was your own interpretation of >> that is not only my interpretation but is the interpretation of the new astral bureau of investigation investigation based on the standards that we follow consistent to the standards that you're following. Is it your interpretation that those also demonstrate the stabilization efforts?

[00:33:40]>> Please repeat.

[00:33:42]>> Is it also the NBI's interpretation that those uh remarks constitute the stabilization >> argumentative? Your honor?

[00:33:51]>> No. If the witness can know >> that that speech by Mor in general in correlation to the other events applying the five factor standards that we have been using which is recognized by other jurisdiction conclusion.

[00:34:18]>> Sorry director I didn't quite get your answer. So are you saying that that's destabilization or no dab >> misleading your honor?

[00:34:25]>> No, the the director hasn't answered yet. Um he cited the basis but cut but but but but cut short of answering the question. So is it based on the five pillars of your investigation? Um um director based on the five pillars comply.

[00:34:58]So you're admitting that there were no there was no destabilization.

[00:35:02]>> Argumentative your honor.

[00:35:04]>> It's connected to the question your honor. Um council, the witness has answered for the appreciation of the senator judges. You may proceed to a similar question or move on to another topic.

[00:35:14]>> Yeah, I'll I'll proceed with a similar question. Director, I am showing you a news article. This is exhibit D-4-66 entitled, and I quote, "Palace dismisses the stab rumors versus Marcos admin."

[00:35:28]So, it was published quite recently, May 12, uh 2026. And for the sake of time, I will just read the first line.

[00:35:35]Therefore, >> assisting council for the parties may approach. It says here, and I quote, Malakanyang on Tuesday said it has not received any information about supposed destabilization efforts against President Ferdinand Bong Bong Marcos Jr.

[00:35:51]My question to you is this. Uh Clare Castro speaks on behalf of PBL. Correct.

[00:35:56]being the spokesperson Tamapu sir >> and based on her statement in this news article there's no there has been no destabilization efforts against PBBM at least as of this date correct wellabilization there is no dabilization from the rank of men in uniforms All right, I'm showing you another recent article, exhibit D-4-67.

[00:36:33]This article is June 12, 2026. So again, quite recent. And again, for the purpose of uh time, it's I'll just read the title. It says Sarah Duterte. I won't grab Marcus' position. My question to you is this. Isn't this news article also consistent with no destabilization efforts that Clare Castro uh previously mentioned?

[00:37:00]Vice President Sut because she's speaking of the state of mind.

[00:37:05]But if you know, >> your honor, may I comment?

[00:37:09]>> Um what is the comment of the um lead prosecutor?

[00:37:12]>> The witness never said that there is destabilization.

[00:37:16]As a matter of fact, what he said during the earlier question is threat to the life of the president amounts to threat to national security. Now he is being asked about this pictures concerning the stab. This is misleading your honor.

[00:37:32]>> As sir, >> the observation of the lead prosecutorism noted it was not an objection. Council um proceed correspondent. Now yesterday you identified an unsigned and unnottorized document which allegedly pertains to an affidavit of Aruro Lascanas.

[00:37:51]Correct.

[00:37:52]>> Yes sir.

[00:37:53]>> All right. Now if you know is this the same Lascanas who appeared before the Senate in 2016 and 2017?

[00:38:01]>> Yes sir.

[00:38:02]>> Okay. So in fact this is the same Lascanas who was charged by the Senate panel led by then Senator and still Senator Panfil Laxon with a recommendation for perjury is he not perjury but uh if it's on record then the answer will be yes. All right. Well, he was or maybe we can confirm it later with Senator Judge Laxon, but and this perjury was committed during a Senate committee hearing if you know only.

[00:38:39]>> Well, no. The only question is the perjury if you know only that the perjury that was recommended for for charging.

[00:38:54]>> I have no honor. I think >> your honor, the witness is incompetent to answer that question. He knows.

[00:39:00]Council, I think the witness already said that he's not aware of it, but that if it is on the record, then most likely um it is true. That was the response of the witness earlier. Sure. I'll just move on to a new point. Now, allow me to read a statement of Senator Lakon and then I'll ask questions thereafter.

[00:39:17]>> May we request, your honor, that the witness be confronted with a document if I think the defense is reading from a document?

[00:39:24]>> Yes, your honor. We will uh provide the hard copy witness, your honor.

[00:39:27]>> We will provide the hard copy and then we'll also show the soft copy on the screen. Your honor, >> assisting council is authorized to um approach.

[00:39:36]>> All right. I will read from both parties. I will read and I quote uh Senator Laxon SP3 Las quote unquote extrajudicial confession.

[00:39:54]Rodrigo personally. Dad, are you aware of this statement by Senator Laxon against Lascanas?

[00:40:28]aware. All right. At any rate, you mentioned yesterday that you did an open-source investigation to obtain the last Kanya's document. Correct.

[00:40:37]>> That is correct po sir.

[00:40:38]>> But to be candid uh was it just Google search?

[00:40:43]>> Uh can you are you at liberty to disclose what uh method you used in that open source investigation? We were provided.

[00:40:53]We got hold of a copy of the abid of Aruro lasagas. With the permission of um councel for the respondent, the chair will allow the intervention of senator judge Laxon given that his name was mentioned in fact not only alluded to but mentioned by um council for respondent. Senator Laxon is recognized to give a manifestation. Thank you for allowing me to interject.

[00:41:31]Having said that, anyway, levity aside, Mr. Presiding officer portion committee report I chaired the committee on public order when we investigated the EJK and indeed I will confirm that Aruro Lasas retracted and changed his testimony. No, after several hearings but recommendation Roman numeral number six recommendations committee report in view of the foregoing the committee recommends the following one amendment of the revised penal code to increase the penalty for the crime of perjury context revised particularly correct.

[00:42:34]Thank Thank you. The manifestation is noted um council for the respondent may proceed but at your at liberty to disclose who searched for that uh lascas document.

[00:42:50]We got hold of it.

[00:42:57]It was provided to us.

[00:43:05]That's okay. I I can I can ask uh subsequent questions regarding to that.

[00:43:09]So actually my question is after you had obtained this document, did you subpoena Lascanas to verify the contents of those documents?

[00:43:22]is nowhere to be found.

[00:43:23]>> That's that's enough. So without verification you decided to believe the contents of the document that you obtained. Again, pattern of violence killing Sorry to interrupt you. So the the the short answer to my question is yes.

[00:44:11]The question is did you decide to believe the contents of the document without verifying it with lasagna?

[00:44:25]Okay. Your honor, may I just manifest that the defense is actually misle misleading already the witness. He kept on raising the question, did you believe right away when as a matter of fact the witnesses explain honor?

[00:44:37]>> I I never meant sorry >> council kindly let can kindly let the read persecutor finish.

[00:44:41]>> The witness has been saying that he did a lot of things after receiving the affidavit of lasas to the extent of going over the five factors that he testified to yesterday. But after that first question, so that means yes. The defense said yes to his question. Did you believe to that right away to that affidavit? The position of the witness, your honor, is no.

[00:45:07]>> Your honor, actually asked as asked and answered asked and answered by the witness. That is his response. Council correspondent um to your question. Move on council.

[00:45:16]>> Yes, your honor. We are satisfied with that answer. But uh another follow-up question. So without verifying it, >> sorry >> that's misleading your honor.

[00:45:26]>> Allow him to finish the question.

[00:45:27]Council, what is the pleasure of Senator Judge just on your ruling? Uh maybe clarified because the question was so council was asking for yes or no. I just want to be clarified.

[00:45:43]Does that mean after just so that the record is clear? Ju just that clarification >> should be no.

[00:45:51]>> Thank you Senator Judge Alan. Witness will please answer. Yes, your honor.

[00:46:05]pattern of violence.

[00:46:32]pattern of violence.

[00:46:39]Okay. and without uh issuing a subpoena to Lasanas and clarifying the matter with him.

[00:46:48]>> Ask and answered, your honor, >> it's a different question, your honor.

[00:46:52]We're already at this point.

[00:46:52]>> Witness witness may answer.

[00:46:55]>> So you mentioned as clarified by the chair. So are you saying that without issuing a subpoena to Lasas and and verifying it with him?

[00:47:12]verification process. All right. But not with Lascanas. Who is the author of that document?

[00:47:18]>> As answered po, your honor, [laughter] the uh presiding officer would like to remind the um witness to kindly avoid uh making a ruling for in behalf of the presiding officer.

[00:47:33]>> Your order.

[00:47:34]>> But um the gentleman would have been correct. um the presiding officer would have said the same thing. Thank you for saving me the trouble but um try to avoid that. Um director >> sorry po your honor.

[00:47:45]>> All right. Thank you council may proceed.

[00:47:47]>> All right director Matibag uh yesterday you identified two videos and you related it with the alleged pattern of behavior of uh VP Sara. Correct. Uh the first video that you showed I think involved the sheriff po. that incident.

[00:48:05]Will you confirm that that incident took place on July 1, 2011?

[00:48:09]>> Yes. Long time ago.

[00:48:11]>> So around 15 years ago.

[00:48:13]>> And did you still find it relevant to use that video under five factors?

[00:48:22]Pattern of violence is the historical behavior. All right.

[00:48:26]With the permission of council correspondent, what is the pleasure of senator judge Andiveros?

[00:48:34]If I may, Mr. Presiding officer, before the defense moves on to a next question, just to ask a follow-up question of the previous topic >> on this matter.

[00:48:44]>> Uh, on the matter of the Lascanas affidavit, Mr. Presiding, >> the lady may um proceed with um that question on Lascanas only. Salamat po.

[00:48:54]Uh, Mr. Presiding officer, >> [clears throat] >> um, follow-up question, Mr. witness.

[00:49:01]According to your testimony yesterday, you reviewed Arturo Lascan's affidavit as part of the larger investigation concerning the vice president's capacity to carry out the alleged threat.

[00:49:17]Director larger investigation your honor.

[00:49:39]Officel reports.

[00:50:06]something to that to that effect.

[00:50:14]Vice President DDS something like that, Mr. Witness, I may return to that point later. Um >> the lady may do so after the uh cross redirect and recross um when she avails for time. Council correspondent may proceed.

[00:50:39]>> All right, let's go back to the sheriff incident. Uh I'm glad you mentioned uh history or historical uh background. Are you aware that that sheriff incident uh pertains to relief operations that was be that were being conducted by the vice president uh then mayor at that time or vice mayor? uh sheriff is trying to enforce a valid order from a legitimate court demolition order then mayor and now vice president. So all right I might not be aware of a relief operation.

[00:51:21]Um are you aware uh I'll just ask you if you're aware. Are you aware that uh it involved a flash flood? This incident happened after a flash flood in that particular community.

[00:51:34]If you know if you know. All right.

[00:51:36]>> I have no knowledge of that.

[00:51:37]>> Are you aware that VP Sara asked that sheriff for an extension of 2 hours just to help the victims?

[00:51:46]And this sheriff and the the demolition that you mentioned involved the demolition of informal settlers in that area.

[00:51:58]Order of eviction informal settlers.

[00:52:01]>> Are you aware that 30 people died during that incident?

[00:52:05]>> I have no knowledge of that. So in other words, uh are you also aware that it was the sheriff's refusal to provide the 2-hour extension that's why VP Sara got >> Well, that is the claim of the then mayor.

[00:52:20]>> If you know only if you know >> I have no knowledge.

[00:52:23]>> You have no knowledge. All right, I'll move on to a new point. Now you also mentioned uh to establish this alleged pattern of behavior the October 18, 2024 presson correct >> and this presscon took place obviously before the material that you used or the November 23 2024 press.

[00:52:45]>> All right. Um I'm showing you a video.

[00:52:48]Your honor will just uh show one video.

[00:52:51]It's around 1 minute. This is exhibit D-4-53 and the USB separately marked as D-4-47.

[00:52:59]And then I'll ask you questions after.

[00:53:01]>> Kindly play the video. Um the tech through the clerk of court is so um directed louder this time. So President, can I have your watch as a graduation gift?

[00:53:21][clears throat] Why? Why will I give you my watch?

[00:53:30]At that point, wasn't feeling very well.

[00:53:55]I realized toxic na relationship and it did not help and I wanted I saw the humiliation I wanted to help him.

[00:54:29]I hope this will do. And then I realiz if I do that. So I just imagine myself cutting his head.

[00:54:52]All right. So, is this the vid? First of all, did you watch this this whole video, director Mat?

[00:54:58]>> Uh, I've watched uh not the entirety of the video.

[00:55:01]>> Not the entirety because it's a long video. It's a That's correct.

[00:55:04]>> Almost 2 hours. But my my question to you is this. Is this the video where you based your finding that VP Sara said imagined cutting his head off? Is this the one po video?

[00:55:19]>> And uh will you agree with know wasn't this press heard by the general public?

[00:55:26]>> And didn't VP Sara say her statements inest?

[00:55:32]>> Well, speculative. You're right. Honor, the witness is smart enough and competent enough to answer.

[00:55:38]>> Nevertheless, your honor, >> witness may answer.

[00:55:41]>> Well, again, I will say I cannot uh go [clears throat] into the state of mind of the vice president and precisely the reason why there's a pattern of violence.

[00:55:55]I understand her disgust, but probably I I understand what you're saying, but my question to you is, didn't you take BP SE out of context?

[00:56:30]It's a different thing if you're doing a bomb.

[00:56:36]All right, law enforcement. We have to give uh credits to that and process. So at any rate, you consider this portion of uh VP Sara's statement to be grave and serious to be a grave and serious threat based on the standards that you mentioned yesterday.

[00:57:05]Pattern of violence.

[00:57:06]>> Isn't that kind of a stretch?

[00:57:08]>> It's argumentative, your honor.

[00:57:10]Argumentative um move on council.

[00:57:13]>> Nothing further your honor. Thank you po sir.

[00:57:25][music]