If Day 3 of the impeachment trial was a warning shot, Day 4 was the moment the prosecution’s house of cards officially collapsed.

What was supposed to be a slam-dunk presentation by the prosecution—masquerading as a solemn impeachment trial—instead exposed the hollow core of their entire narrative. The mask slipped. The “expert witness” brought in to seal Vice President Sara Duterte’s fate ended up dismantling the case against her, piece by piece.
His name is Atty. Jeremy Lotoc, NBI Regional Director and former head of the NBI Cybercrime Division. For two hours, private prosecutor Atty. Amado “Virgil” Ligutan tried to use him to prove that words spoken in anger, in public, and under extreme duress constitute an impeachable offense.
They failed. And here is exactly why.

The Illusion of the "Expert" Witness

Picture the scene: The Philippine Senate, transformed into an impeachment court. The prosecution, desperate to move past the embarrassment of the previous days, rolls out their cybercrime “expert.”
Atty. Ligutan spent two hours walking Lotoc through the NBI’s impressive-sounding “four-stage cybercrime investigation process”:
  1. Identification and preservation of digital evidence
  2. Collection and hashing
  3. Analysis and attribution
  4. Legal evaluation
Sounds airtight, right? Until you realize all four stages led to the exact same place: a video that everyone has already seen.
What did Lotoc actually prove? He proved a video exists. That’s it. He opined that the threats were “serious,” concluded the statements weren’t protected speech, and warned of “anarchy.” But in the court of law and public reason, opinions are not evidence. Conclusions are not proof. Warnings are not facts.

Dismantling the NBI’s "Four Factors"

Lotoc testified that the NBI deemed the threats “serious” and “real” based on four factors. Let’s break them down the way a seasoned lawyer would on cross-examination:
1. "Furious and Fuming Delivery"
Since when does anger equal criminal intent? If that’s the standard, every parent who has shouted at a misbehaving child, or every politician who has declared they will “destroy” their opponents, is guilty of grave threats. Emotion is not evidence of a crime—especially when that emotion is a response to watching one’s chief of staff be illegally detained and one’s own life allegedly threatened.
2. "The Literal Meaning of the Words"
Words do not exist in a vacuum. Context matters. When the Vice President said, “I imagine myself cutting his head,” was she announcing an actual decapitation plan, or expressing heated, hyperbolic frustration over political persecution? Every rational person knows it’s the latter. Furthermore, her November 23, 2024 statement about contracting an assassin was explicitly conditional: “If I am killed.” That little phrase destroys the prosecution’s entire theory.
3. "Specific Nature of the Instruction"
What instruction? To whom? Despite their vaunted “four-stage process,” the NBI could not identify a single person the VP allegedly hired. No name. No contact records. No money transferred. No conspiracy proven. Just words in a public video.
4. "The Relationship Between the Parties"
The prosecution wants to frame this relationship as purely adversarial. But the real context is a relationship where the VP’s chief of staff was illegally detained, her family systematically investigated, and her life allegedly under threat via “Operation Romanov.” This doesn’t prove criminal intent; it provides the motive for heated, defensive rhetoric.

The Elephant in the Courtroom: Where is the Assassin?

Here is the question that completely derails the prosecution’s case: If Vice President Duterte actually hired an assassin, where is he?
The NBI deployed their cybercrime process, analyzed the video frame by frame, and found… nothing. No hitman. No operational plan. No evidence of any actual steps taken to execute the alleged threat.
When Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian asked Lotoc directly if they identified the person the VP claimed to have hired, or if they validated the alleged threat against the VP’s life (Operation Romanov), Lotoc’s answer was a resounding: No.
They investigated a video. They authenticated it (which no one disputed). They offered an opinion on the words. But they found no crime beyond the utterance of speech.

The "Time-Traveling" Documents: Sloppiness or Deception?

If there was a MVP of Day 4, it was Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, whose surgical cross-examination exposed glaring, indefensible errors in the prosecution’s paperwork.
  • The "Typo" That Wasn’t: The NBI’s complaint affidavit identified VP Duterte as the “Secretary of the Department of Justice” instead of the Department of Education. Lotoc dismissed it as a “mere typographical error.” As Cayetano rightly pointed out, confusing two entirely different cabinet departments isn’t a typo; it’s gross incompetence or evidence of a rush job.
  • The Impossible Timeline: The NBI’s subpoena to ABS-CBN was dated November 6, 2024—weeks before the alleged November 23 threat even occurred. How do you subpoena evidence for a crime that hasn’t happened yet?
  • The Time-Traveling Document: Senator Imee Marcos highlighted an Investigation Data Form sworn on February 11, 2025, but stamped as received by the DOJ on January 30, 2025. Unless the DOJ has a time machine, this is impossible.
As Senator Erwin Tulfo rightly warned, this kind of sloppy paperwork is exactly what gets cases dismissed in regular courts. It reveals an investigation that was either recklessly rushed or predetermined.

The Missing Context: Operation Romanov and Zuleika Lopez

Throughout the direct examination, the prosecution carefully dodged the context that explains the VP’s rhetoric.
On the very day of the November 23 statements, her Chief of Staff, Undersecretary Zuleika Lopez, was being illegally detained by the House of Representatives and transferred to the Women’s Correctional Facility as a political prisoner. The VP was watching her staff being imprisoned.
Furthermore, the NBI admitted they could not validate the alleged “Operation Romanov” plot to assassinate the Vice President. If the NBI refuses to investigate credible threats against the Vice President, why should the public trust their investigation of alleged threats by her?

The Final Scorecard: A Failure of Proof

To sustain a charge of Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the threat was serious, determined, unlawful, and actionable.
What they proved: A video exists, and the VP spoke angry words.
What they failed to prove: An actual conspiracy, a hired assassin, operational steps, capability, or that the threat was anything more than conditional, defensive hyperbole.
Atty. Ligutan’s direct examination gets a D-. It authenticated evidence no one disputed and provided expert opinions unsupported by factual investigation. That’s not winning a case; that’s wasting the court’s time.
In a nation that values freedom of speech, you cannot remove a Vice President from office based solely on words spoken in anger, in public, in response to persecution. That’s not justice. That’s political persecution wearing the mask of legality.

💬 JOIN THE CONVERSATION!

What do you think about Day 4 of the impeachment trial? Do you believe the NBI’s investigation was thorough, or was it a rushed, predetermined narrative?
👇 Drop your thoughts in the comments below!
👍 Like this post if you believe in fair and fact-based justice.
🔗 Share this article to keep the conversation going and ensure the truth reaches more Filipinos!
Stay tuned to Balitang Huli for more unfiltered, in-depth analysis of the stories that matter.