Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano on Monday questioned the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) findings on Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged threats after citing what he described as gaps and inconsistencies in the agency’s investigation.
During the fourth day of the impeachment trial on July 13, 2026, Cayetano asked NBI BARMM Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, who headed the NBI Cybercrime Division during the investigation and was one of the four investigators who signed the bureau’s Affidavit of Investigation, if the NBI coordinated with other agencies that also looked into the alleged threats, including the Presidential Security Command (PSC) and the PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG).
Lotoc said he was unaware if such coordination took place, explaining that any exchange of information would have been handled on a “need-to-know basis.”
“The problem with your answers is that kung ‘yan ang sagot mo parati, eh ‘di hindi mo inimbestigahan [ito] nang husto,” Cayetano said.
“Kung inimbestigahan ninyo talaga y’ung buo at kayo ang head, bakit hindi ninyo kinausap y’ung mga ibang nag-imbestiga? Baka may alam sila na hindi [ninyo alam],” he added.
Cayetano also questioned the consistency of the NBI’s conclusions after pointing out that investigators testified before the impeachment court that they viewed Duterte’s remarks as “absolute” while the bureau’s Affidavit of Investigation classified them as “conditional.”
He likewise pointed to what he described as a factual error in the affidavit after it incorrectly identified Duterte as a former Secretary of the Department of Justice instead of the Department of Education.
When Lotoc explained that it was a typographical error, Cayetano said: “That’s not a typo (typographical error). A typo means y’ung ‘Department’ naging ‘Depart.’ ‘Department of Justice’ and ‘Department of Education’ are two different things.”
The senator-judge also asked if the NBI relied on the proper legal basis in concluding that Duterte’s remarks constituted grave threats.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court case cited by investigators centered on res judicata (a matter already decided by the courts) and double jeopardy, not on whether a conditional statement constitutes grave threats.
“Isn’t it true that the lis mota (main issue) of that case was really res judicata and double jeopardy? Meaning, hindi tinake up ng Supreme Court whether or not [it was] a condition,” he asked.
“Yes, sir,” Lotoc replied.
Later in the proceedings, Cayetano made a manifestation clarifying an important distinction under Article IV of the Articles of Impeachment.
He said the prosecution may argue that Duterte’s public statements themselves constitute an impeachable offense, but its separate allegation that she contracted an assassin is a distinct factual assertion that must be supported by evidence.
“They went further to say that they are alleging that she did in fact contract an assassin,” Cayetano said.
“That’s a conclusion of law. Because it is basic that if someone alleges that someone contracted an assassin, you have to prove [it],” he added.