MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Sara Duterte centered its cross-examination on Tuesday, July 21, by pounding on National Bureau of Investigation Director Melvin Matibag’s lack of personal knowledge of some aspects of the NBI’s probe into the Vice President’s alleged grave threats.

During his cross-examination, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan laid out the NBI director’s lack of personal knowledge by asking him a series of queries. First, Vinluan asked Matibag about the 10 subpoenas issued to the personalities who attended Duterte’s 2024 press conference, where she allegedly threatened President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family.

Each time Matibag said he lacked personal knowledge of a specific document flashed on the screen, the defense put an “X” emoji on it.

The NBI director said he was also not the signatory to the NBI subpoenas because he was not yet appointed at the time.

“The witness already testified that he has no personal knowledge about the first investigation. And all his testimonies will be based only on the records existing in the NBI,” lead prosecutor Gerville Luistro interjected during the trial.

Matibag explained on Tuesday that the NBI probe has two parts. The first was the investigation right after the November 2024 press conference under a different NBI head. The second probe, meanwhile, refers to the special task force created by Matibag’s Administrative Order No. 11 last April.

Vinluan later went straight to his point: witnesses can only testify to the information they have personal knowledge of. During the trial, he asked Matibag about the rule on the limitations of testimony, stating Section 22 of Rule 130 of the amended rules on evidence.

“A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception,” the provision stated.

The defense’s point was that Matibag only has personal knowledge so far as the second probe is concerned.

“Ang sinasabi natin is, pagdating do’n sa unang investigation na wala siyang personal knowledge, ‘yon po ay tinatawag nating hearsay. So, ibig sabihin, wala kang personal na kaalaman kasi hindi ka na-involve doon sa investigasyon na ‘yon,” defense spokesperson and counsel Michael Poa told reporters in a briefing.

(What we are saying is, in terms of the first investigation, which he has no personal knowledge of, that’s hearsay. This means a person has no personal knowledge because that person was not involved in the investigation.)

Play Video

Testing Matibag’s credibility, ‘bias’

Similar to past impeachment trials, the defense team cast doubt on Matibag by testing his credibility and supposed bias.

“Ang point namin talaga is to test the credibility, test kung may bias man o wala,” Poa said. “We were really just testing the credibility at kung may personal bias ‘yong witness because that will, syempre, affect ‘yong integrity ng kaniyang mga naging testimonya or at least ‘yong pagsasagawa ng imbestigasyon.”

(Our point is to test the credibility, test if there’s bias or none. We were really just testing the credibility, and if the witness has personal bias, that will affect the integrity of his testimony or his conduct of investigation.)

The defense also touched on Matibag’s personal life, specifically on his incident with friend Mel Sabio.

Last May, Matibag was in hot water after his conversation with his friend leaked. In the viral video, Matibag was arguing with Sabio over the phone, and, at one point, the NBI director could be heard allegedly threatening to harm his friend.

However, Matibag and Sabio have already reconciled after the incident.

As to the alleged bias, the defense also highlighted that Matibag’s wife, Laguna 1st District Representative Ann Matibag, is among the lawmakers who backed the articles of impeachment against Duterte.

Vinluan also presented Matibag’s opinion article, “Inday Sara, The Bratinella,” which depicted the Vice President as a brat.

“Yes, my wife is one of the endorsers of the impeachment,” Matibag said during the trial.

“My decision to be a witness is by virtue of a subpoena issued by the honorable court and by invitation of the committee on justice, the prosecution. However, the job of my wife as a legislator is totally detached from me being the director of the National Bureau of Investigation,” he further explained.

Play Video

“We meant no offense, and I hope none was taken by Director Matibag. We respect that, except that in cross-examinations, you really have to test not just the credibility but also bias,” Poa said in a mix of English and Filipino.

Objecting to Lascañas’ affidavit

The prosecution asked Matibag to read portions of self-confessed Davao Death Squad member Arturo Lascañas’ affidavit, which mentioned the Vice President. This affidavit has been submitted to the International Criminal Court as part of the crimes against humanity case against Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte.

Lascañas named the Vice President over five times in his affidavit. There, he claimed that they had allegedly received kill orders from the former president, then later, from Sara as Davao City mayor.

In another instance, Lascañas claimed that an abduction operation allegedly ordered by Sara had been relayed to him at one point.

For the defense, Matibag’s reading of the document during the trial was “highly improper.”

“We already allowed the witness [to] at least identify this document. But as to the fact that he is allowed to read even portions thereof, he’s not the author of this affidavit. And as to the truth or falsity thereof, [he’s] incompetent to testify on that. And it…already violates the rights of our client because she’s being prejudiced by the reading of this affidavit,” Vinluan explained.

The impeachment court allowed the defense’s motion to continue its cross-examination of Matibag on Wednesday, July 22, to give them more time to study the Lascañas document. – Rappler.com