NBI agent, video on alleged kill rant admitted as witness, evidence

Meanwhile, lawyers identified with Duterte asked the Supreme Court to stop the impeachment trial over rules issues and the designation of Senator Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero as the court’s presiding officer.

This as retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio maintained that the

Constitution does not mandate that the Senate president should sit as presiding officer in the impeachment trial.

The prosecution introduced its first witness, Senior Agent John Mark Calilung of the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) cybercrime unit.

Calilung was tasked with validating Duterte’s November 2024 livestream, during which she purportedly disclosed that she had hired a hitman to kill the President, the First lady, and Leyte First District Rep. Romualdez.

Court junks motion to exclude NBI witness

Defense lawyer Carlo Joaquin Narvasa moved to exclude Calilung as a prosecution witness, saying his name was not attached to the Saballa and Cabrera complaints, as well as the articles of impeachment transmitted to the Senate. The court overruled this objection.

The prosecution presented two videos that highlighted statements made by Duterte, which were supposedly pertinent to the grave threats complaint. A third film clip was shown featuring a statement from President Marcos, addressing these threats as part of the prosecution’s presentations.

The defense wanted the prosecution to play the whole two-hour video of the Vice President where she made the alleged assassination threat against the President  to show the full context of her statement in the video lasting two hours and 36 minutes.

The prosecution argued that only the two-minute video was relevant to the case. Prosecution lawyer Virgil Ligutan asserted that the video had been unedited and preserved as is.

Prosecution lawyer Virgil Ligutan and defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa appear on July 7, 2026 at the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. (Photo by Lino Santos / SPPA Pool) 

Court overrules defense bid to air entire video

The court favored the showing of the two-minute video, which showed the Vice President saying on Nov. 23, 2024 that she hired a hitman to kill the First Couple, along with Romualdez.

Duterte claimed later on that her words were “maliciously taken out of logical context.”

Calilung testified to having identified, preserved, collected and authenticated the video and other related digital recordings.

The two-minute video showed Duterte saying: “Yes, huwag kang mag-alala, ma’am, sa security ko kasi may kinausap na ako na tao. Sinabi ko sa kanya kapag pinatay ako, patayin mo si BBM, si Liza Araneta, at si Martin Romualdez. No joke, no joke. Nagbilin na ako, ma’am. ‘Pag namatay ako, sabi ko huwag kang tumigil hanggang ‘di mo mapatay sila. And then he said ‘yes.’”

(Don’t worry Ma’am with my security because I have talked with a person. I told him if I get killed, kill BBM, Liza Araneta, and Martin Romualdez. I left words: If I die, don’t stop until you kill them).

SC asked to stop impeachment hearings

In an urgent manifestation with motion, the lawyers led by Israelito Torreon sought a status quo ante order or any appropriate relief enjoining the Impeachment Court from continuing the hearings.

The manifestation was pursuant to an earlier petition filed last March by Torreon, as well as Duterte, to nullify the impeachment complaints.

“Petitioners thus respectfully submit that a temporary restraining order, status quo ante order, or other appropriate interim relief is warranted to ensure that the impeachment trial proceeds, if at all, only under Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials validly adopted and only under a presiding officer whose authority to preside is not under serious and unresolved constitutional challenge,” the petition stated.

Duterte’s lawyers further argued that that the validity of the June 3, 2026 proceedings at the Senate which eventually led to the election of Senator Sherwin Gatchalian as Senate president, the amendments to the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, and the designation of Escudero as presiding officer, directly affect the validity of the impeachment trial.

“Otherwise, constitutional review may be reduced to an after-the-fact pronouncement on proceedings that have already moved forward under a cloud of illegality,” the petitioners asserted.

Election of Chiz as president officer valid — Carpio

Asked if the election of Senator-Judge Escudero as presiding officer is legit, Carpio told Manila Standard that the fundamental law does not specifically require the Senate president to preside.

“The Constitution does not say the Senate President shall preside in all other impeachment cases,” he said.

Carpio noted that what the 1987 Constitution only provides is that the Chief Justice of the SC shall preside when the President of the Philippines is on trial.

Impeachment Presiding Officer Francis ‘Chiz’ Escudero (right) oversees the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte alongside Senate President Win Gatchalian on July 7, 2026. (Courtesy: Senate of the Philippines) 

Further, the same provision provides the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate to convict the impeachable officer.

Last month, the retired magistrate raised concerns that the presiding officer of the impeachment trial should faithfully implement the forthwith requirement of the Constitution.

“We should elect someone who has not favored the non-holding of the impeachment proceedings. Chiz (Escudero) has said forthwith does not mean kaagad (immediate), we can delay this,” said Carpio.

“We don’t want a presiding officer who will say forthwith means hindi kaagad (not immediate). I think we should put somebody there who has not made that kind of a position,” he added.

Carpio, who previously served as chair of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, underscored the presiding officer’s crucial role in the trial, noting that the presiding officer will deliver the initial ruling in the course of the proceedings.

— Joel E. Zurbano, Maricel Cruz & Pot Chavez