A heated exchange over the prosecution's theory of the case marked Tuesday's impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, with several senator-judges questioning whether the prosecution had prematurely argued its case instead of limiting itself to presenting evidence.
Hontiveros questions evidence on contract killing
The exchange began when Senator-judge Risa Hontiveros questioned the prosecution's witness, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) senior agent John Mark Calilung, who testified about the agency's open-source intelligence review of Duterte's public statements against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his wife, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
Hontiveros asked Calilung why investigators considered Duterte's statements during an October 18, 2024 press conference similar to those she made on November 23, 2024. Calilung replied that both statements referred to Marcos and reflected that Duterte and the President were already no longer on good terms as early as October 2024.
In an October 18 press conference, Duterte said she had imagined at one point tearing off the head of Marcos, realizing that their relationship is already toxic. In a November 23, 2024 press conference, she said she has contracted an assassin to kill the President, his wife, and Romualdez if she herself is killed.
Prosecutor argues intent over proof
Hontiveros then turned to the House prosecution panel, noting that none of the evidence presented so far established that Duterte had actually hired or contracted an assassin. “None of these statements are proof that the Vice President actually contracted an assassin or hired one. Why are these acts impeachable?” she asked.
House prosecutor Armando Virgil Ligutan responded that the prosecution was building its case by showing Duterte's intent rather than proving the alleged contract killing at that stage of the proceedings. “The prosecution is in the process of establishing that the Vice President should be impeached for contracting an assassin to kill the President,” Ligutan said.
He acknowledged that Duterte's statements alone may not constitute “100 percent proof” that she hired an assassin, but argued that under Rule 130, Section 35 of the Rules of Court, a person's statements may be admitted to establish intent, knowledge, identity, plan, or system. Ligutan said the November 23, 2024 remarks should not be viewed in isolation.
“The charges against the Vice President, the betrayal of public trust that is also a culpable violation to the constitution, the issue was that a criminal act? Yes. That is why the NBI, through this witness, will prove that the NBI has filed a case against the Vice President exactly for her threats. But you know, I'm a lawyer and I am willing to take off my robe as a lawyer and answer the question directly,” he said.
“When in the history of the Philippines did the second highest official of the country threaten, said in public that she has contracted an assassin to kill the President of the Philippines, his wife and the former speaker? Threatening the life of the President is not normal. That is the first time that happened. Even without going into the question of whether that is a criminal act, that act 110 percent sure betrayed the public trust that the VP had in the previous election,” he added.
Escudero and Cayetano weigh in
The defense objected to the statement, but impeachment court presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero allowed Ligutan to finish, reserving his ruling on the objection. Escudero later reminded both parties that Hontiveros' question ultimately went to the central issue that the impeachment court itself must decide.
“I would like to remind my colleagues that the question posed by Senator Risa pertains to the final question of this entire proceeding already — whether that is an impeachable act or not,” Escudero said. He stressed that the prosecutor's remarks were conclusions of fact and law rather than evidence.
Senator-judge Pia Cayetano agreed, saying the prosecution's response resembled a closing argument instead of testimony. “I don't think that this is fair. When we allow this to happen, we shortcut the process,” Cayetano said, as she moved to have Ligutan's remarks stricken from the record. The motion, however, was tabled.
Hontiveros later clarified that she did not intend to invite a closing argument from the prosecution. “For clarity, my question had to do with how the evidence is material to the allegations in the articles of impeachment because the evidence does not yet prove that the Vice President actually sought an assassin,” she said. “I wanted to appreciate the evidence before me in light of the articles of impeachment. If you wish to strike out the response, then so be it, but my intention was not to provoke a closing statement,” she added.
Defense challenges witness, court rules for prosecution
Calilung was the first witness presented by the prosecution panel from the House of Representatives related to the grave threats allegations. Before Calilung testified, defense counsel Carlo Navasa moved to exclude him as a witness, arguing that his name did not appear in the Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Representatives to the Senate. Navasa maintained that Calilung was likewise not identified as a witness in the Saballa and Cabrera impeachment complaint from which the article originated.
Ligutan opposed the motion, arguing that the objection was improper because the impeachment trial is already a separate proceeding from the original verified complaint. “The Saballa and Cabrera complaint has already lived its natural life,” Ligutan told the impeachment court. He also pointed out that Calilung had already been identified as a witness in the prosecution's pre-trial brief and pre-trial order.
Escudero sided with the prosecution. “The court, in general, will not shackle the prosecution by limiting it to the evidence mentioned in the information and/or the articles, especially if it's been mentioned in the pre-trial brief, not only order but brief, of the counsel for prosecutors,” Escudero ruled. He explained that the Articles of Impeachment require only a summary of the evidence supporting each charge and do not prevent prosecutors from presenting additional evidence during trial.
Calilung is a senior NBI agent with specialized training in digital forensic examination, making him competent to identify, preserve, collect, analyze, authenticate and present digital evidence in court. He was among the investigators assigned by the NBI Cybercrime Division to examine Duterte's November 23, 2024 controversial online media briefing. During the hearing, prosecutors played a portion of the said online press conference and it was formally marked and admitted as part of the prosecution's evidence.
The defense sought to play the entire nearly two-hour press conference during the prosecution's presentation, arguing that the full context should be considered to which the prosecution objected. Escudero ruled that while the prosecution may present only the portions it considers relevant to support its allegations, the defense would be allowed to play the entire recording when it presents its own evidence. “We will not interfere with how each party presents its case,” he said. He noted that presenting excerpts of lengthy recordings is intended to save time and allow each side to focus on evidence supporting its respective theory of the case.
Prosecution seeks subpoenas for additional witnesses
Meanwhile, the House prosecution panel asked the impeachment court to issue subpoenas to Office of the Vice President (OVP) Chief of Staff Zuleika Lopez and National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag to compel their attendance as witnesses. The prosecution said Lopez and Matibag are scheduled to testify during the hearings set for July 13 to 15, 2026, at 2 p.m. The panel asked the Senate impeachment court to issue the subpoenas to ensure the two officials would be available to testify as it continues presenting evidence against Duterte.
