MANILA, Philippines – The defense team of Sarah Duterte focused on its investigation on Tuesday, July 21, by striking the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation. Melvin Matibag’s lack of personal knowledge of some aspects of the NBI’s investigation into the alleged serious threats against the Vice President.
During his cross-examination, defense lawyer Mark Vinluan exposed the NBI director’s lack of personal knowledge by asking him several questions. First, Vinluan asked Matibag about the 10 subpoenas issued to celebrities who attended Duterte’s 2024 press conference, where he allegedly threatened President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his family.
Every time Matibag said he had no personal knowledge of a specific document flashed on the screen, the defense placed an “X” emoji over it.
The NBI director said he was also not a signatory to the NBI subpoenas because he had not yet been appointed at that time.
“The witness already testified that he has no personal knowledge of the first investigation. And all his testimony will be based on the records available at the NBI,” chief prosecutor Gerville Luistro intervened during the trial.
Matibag explained on Tuesday that the NBI investigation has two parts. The first was an investigation immediately after the November 2024 press conference under a different NBI chief. The second investigation, meanwhile, refers to the special task force created by Matibag Administrative Order No. 11 last April.
Vinluan later went straight to his point: witnesses can only testify to information they have personal knowledge of. During the trial, he asked Matibag about the law on limitations of testimony, saying Article 22 of Rule 130 of the revised rules on evidence.
“A witness can only testify to the truth of things that he is aware of on his personal knowledge; that is, that is based on his own opinion,” the article said.
The defense’s argument was that Matibag only has personal knowledge so far as the second investigation is concerned.
“What we are saying is that, when it comes to the first observation that he has no personal knowledge, that is what we call hearsay.. So, that means, you have no personal knowledge because you were not involved in the investigation,” defense spokesman and lawyer Michael Poa told reporters in a brief session.
(What we are saying is that, in the case of the first observation, which has no personal knowledge, that is hearsay. This means that a person has no personal knowledge because that person was not involved in the investigation.)
Measuring Matibag’s credibility, ‘bias’
Similar to previous prosecution cases, the defense team questioned Matibag by testing his credibility and perceived bias.
“Our point is to test honesty, test if there is bias or not,” Poa said.We were really just testing credibility and if a witness has a personal bias because of that it will definitely affect the integrity of his testimony or at least the conduct of the investigation..”
(Our idea is to test credibility, to test whether there is bias or not. Actually we were just testing credibility, and if a witness has personal bias, that will affect the integrity of his testimony or his investigative conduct.)
The defense also touched on Matibag’s personal life, particularly about his incident with friend Mel Sabio.
Last May, Matibag was in hot water after his conversation with his friend was leaked. In the online video, Matibag was arguing with Sabio over the phone, and, at one point, the NBI director was heard allegedly threatening to harm his friend.
However, Matibag and Sabio have already reconciled after the incident.
Regarding the allegations of favoritism, the defense also pointed out that Matibag’s wife, Laguna 1st District Representative Ann Matibag, is among the lawmakers who supported the articles of impeachment against Duterte.
Vinluan also presented Matibag’s opinion piece, “Inday Sara, The Bratinella,” which portrayed the Vice President as a hero.
“Yes, my wife is one of those who approved the charges,” Matibag said during the trial.
“My decision to be a witness is because of the subpoena issued by the honorable court and at the invitation of the justice committee, the prosecution. However, my wife’s work as a member of parliament is completely separated from me being the director of the National Investigation Office,” he explained further.
“We do not mean any offense, and I hope Director Matibag does not have one. We respect that, except that in the exams, you must try not only honesty but also favoritism,” Poa said in a mixture of English and Filipino.
Opposing the affidavit of Lascañas
The prosecution asked Matibag to read parts of his confession to being a member of the Davao Death Squad. Arturo Lascañas’ affidavit, which named the Vice President. This affidavit has been submitted to the International Criminal Court as part of the crime against humanity case against Duterte’s father, the former president. Rodrigo Duterte.
Lascañas mentioned the Vice President more than five times in his affidavit. There, he claimed that they received orders to kill from the former president, then later, from Sara as mayor of Davao City.
In another incident, Lascañas claimed that a kidnapping operation allegedly ordered by Sara was brought to him at one point.
For the defense, Matibag’s reading of the document during the trial was “very inappropriate.”
“We already allowed the witness to (at least) identify this document. But regarding the fact that he is allowed to read even parts of it, he is not the author of this affidavit. And regarding its truth or falsity, (he is) not able to testify on that. And … it already violates the rights of our client because he is disgusted by the reading of this affidavit.”
The prosecution granted the defense’s request to continue questioning Matibag on Wednesday, July 22, to give them more time to examine Lascañas’ document. – Rappler.com
