[These are only the highlights of Day 3 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, held July 8, 2026. This is a watching-along notebook, not a full transcript. Not everything that happened is here. What is here is what stood out.]
NARVASA GOT HIS TURN AT THE MIC.
Day 3 was cross-examination day. Defense counsel Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa took over the questioning of NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung, who had spent all of Day 2 being direct-examined by private prosecutor Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan. The witness left the Senate premises at 4:42 p.m. The prosecution decided not to conduct a redirect. Trial adjourned at 4:57 p.m. and resumes Monday, July 13, at 2 p.m.
If Day 2 belonged to Ligutan and the video, Day 3 belonged to Narvasa and the paper trail.
THE PIVOT: FROM WHAT WAS SAID TO WHO INVESTIGATED IT.
Narvasa did not spend his cross re-litigating what Duterte said on November 23, 2024. He spent it dismantling how the NBI handled it.
He asked Calilung about his qualifications. Calilung had two weeks of digital forensics training with a company called Maxcor Inter-Ventures Co.
Narvasa produced Maxcor's corporate documents and its website. Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian later pointed out that Maxcor looks like a supplier of equipment.
Calilung explained the training was included in the procurement of digital forensic tools.
Sen. Kiko Pangilinan followed up on Calilung's educational background and training after the defense had already pressed him on digital and cybersecurity competency.
Narvasa then moved to the affidavits of investigation.
There were two: one in January 2025 and a revised one in February 2025 dated February 10.
The January affidavit was returned to the NBI for seven reasons, including the absence of an affidavit of the person who recorded the November 23, 2024 video.
Narvasa pointed out that even the revised February 10 affidavit did not attach the affidavits of the offended parties — President Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former Speaker Martin Romualdez. Calilung confirmed he did not have personal knowledge of whether the three ever filed any criminal complaints.
The revised affidavit also did not attach affidavits from the journalists who attended the November 23 briefing.
Then came the line that framed the day. "Did you really investigate this case?" Narvasa asked. Calilung's answers were shorter than the questions.
NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
Narvasa walked Calilung through what he did and did not know.
Narvasa: "You only acquired knowledge about it when you started investigating?" Calilung: "Yes, sir."
Narvasa: "You also don't have personal knowledge of the alleged assassin that was allegedly hired by the vice president?" Calilung: Answered no.
Later Sen. Bam Aquino returned to the same territory and gave Calilung a way to explain himself.
Aquino asked whether he investigated the hitman apart from the video. Calilung said he was only tasked to investigate the video.
Aquino then asked the prosecution if it would call another witness on the alleged hitman. Ligutan said yes.
MOTU PROPRIO, AND WHO WAS "HIGHER."
Calilung said the NBI started the investigation motu proprio — on its own initiative — upon order from the Department of Justice.
When Narvasa pressed on what was "higher than the DOJ," Calilung clarified that in this case it was only the DOJ that ordered the investigation.
Escudero cut in and said the objection was argumentative and that Calilung had used "above" as a general term but was referring only to the DOJ.
Calilung also said the NBI complied with DOJ requirements and secured a second certification stating its documents were sufficient for preliminary investigation.
THE ZULEIKA LOPEZ VIDEO.
Narvasa played a portion of a video of Zuleika Lopez, then Duterte's chief of staff and OVP undersecretary, taken during her detention at the House of Representatives.
In the clip, Lopez is heard objecting to her transfer to the Women's Correctional and saying her life was being threatened.
She had been cited for contempt by the House quad committee, chaired by Rep. Joel Chua who is now a House prosecutor, over an OVP letter to state auditors requesting that certain audit documents be withheld. Lopez had signed the letter.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked Narvasa what the relevance was. Narvasa said the issue was broader than one incident.
"There was a systematic oppression made by the House of Representatives dating back...even before their mini-trial, your Honor, the Committee headed by Cong. Chua began investigating the Vice President and her people.
Even when Atty. Zuleika is being interviewed by the QuadComm even if she was answering the questions faithfully and the best of her ability, she was cited in contempt and detained. Her lawyer was not allowed to be with her when they were trying to detain her in the Women's Correctional Facility."
Hontiveros pressed. She asked whether the defense's position was that grave threats are acceptable when there is a legitimate reason. Narvasa said that is not the point.
The defense's argument was that Lopez's detention, and what happened to Duterte's people around it, was the trigger for what Duterte said on November 23, 2024. Not a plan. A reaction.
THE VIDEO WAS NOT AI.
Sen. Raffy Tulfo asked how Calilung could tell the November 23 press conference was not AI-generated. Calilung said he had enough experience to know, and pointed out that AI-generated videos generally last only a few seconds while the material here was hours long. He maintained the video was authentic.
ABSOLUTE OR CONDITIONAL — CALILUNG SAID BOTH.
Asked by Sen. Joel Villanueva what factors make a statement a serious threat, Calilung said the key factor was whether the person making the threat had the capability to carry it out. He then argued that Duterte's remark opened a loophole: even if Duterte herself dies, a third party can execute the statement. "The threat is absolute, Sir," he said.
But when Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano asked whether the NBI's own affidavit described the remark as a conditional threat, Calilung answered directly. "Based on our affidavit, sir, I believe it's conditional."
That concession will be argued for weeks. Was it a real order, or a hypothetical uttered under duress? The prosecution has already telegraphed that it will invoke the rule on statements showing "specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, or system."
The defense has already telegraphed that it will call the whole thing a wife's reaction to a threat against her family.
ESCUDERO TOLD BOTH SIDES TO STICK TO THE EVIDENCE.
Escudero warned prosecutors and defense counsel to stop making arguments that sound like closing statements. He said this is not yet the time for concluding remarks.
He directed lawyers to confine their arguments to pending objections and questions about the evidence.
He reminded senator-judges to be careful about pushing counsel into conclusions of law and fact instead of allowing them to present evidence.
He also allowed questioning to continue in most instances, signaling a preference for letting the record fill up before weighing what it means.
He also reaffirmed the 16-vote threshold for conviction. Twenty-four sitting senators, two-thirds is 16. The number does not move even if senators are absent. This ruling had already been made on Day 1. On Day 3 he stood by it.
He also reiterated that Duterte is not required to attend her own trial.
PIA CAYETANO WITHDREW HER MOTION.
Sen. Pia Cayetano confirmed she was withdrawing the motion she made on Day 2 to strike out Ligutan's answer to Hontiveros — the one several senators said sounded like a premature closing statement. In exchange, the defense was given equal time to make its own remarks at the end of the day.
VINLUAN CLOSED FOR THE DEFENSE.
Atty. Mark Vinluan delivered the defense's end-of-day remarks. His argument had three moves.
First, the evidence gap. "The prosecution admitted that the video does not prove any fact other than its existence. In simple words, there is no proof of any contracting of an assassin. The prosecution has no other competent evidence to prove that VP Sara contracted an assassin."
Second, the character of the speaker. Duterte was not speaking in her capacity as vice president when she made those remarks, Vinluan said. "When VP Sara uttered those words, she was not responding as Sara Duterte, the Vice-President, but Sara Duterte, the wife, mother, daughter, and sister who only sought to protect her own and her family members' lives."
Third, the missing perspective. The NBI, Vinluan argued, ignored Duterte's side and skipped over the alleged plot against her family that she called Oplan Romanov.
PRINCESS MAUI AND OPLAN ROMANOV.
Alan Peter Cayetano asked whether Princess Maui, identified as a Duterte ally, complied with the NBI's invitation to give details about the alleged plot against the Duterte family known as Oplan Romanov. Calilung said the NBI had invited both Duterte and Princess Maui to appear. Neither came.
Calilung added that the NBI did include the alleged threats against Duterte in its investigation and had asked her about them.
Sen. Erwin Tulfo followed up on jurisdiction. He asked whether the NBI has the power to investigate threats against the President, Vice President, Senate President, House Speaker, and Chief Justice even without a request from the person threatened. Calilung cited Republic Act No. 10867, the law creating the modern NBI, and said the bureau files a case when the evidence is enough.
ONE WITHDRAWN QUESTION.
During the cross, Narvasa withdrew a question he had put to Calilung about his role in investigating the video. The withdrawal became one of the session's talking points on TV and online. Small in the record, big in the clip cycle.
NEXT WEEK'S LINEUP.
The prosecution moved its second witness, NBI-BARMM Regional Director Atty. Jeremy Lotoc, from Wednesday to Monday, July 13. Ligutan's reasoning was that the prosecution would utilize the 11 days allotted to Article IV in full and did not need to rush a second witness in on Day 3.
The plan for the week of July 13:
- Monday, July 13 — Jeremy Lotoc, NBI Regional Director.
- Tuesday, July 14 — Zuleika Lopez, OVP chief of staff, whose subpoena Escudero granted on Day 3.
- Wednesday, July 15 — Capt. Belinda Bello, executive director of the House Legislative Security Bureau.
Also next Wednesday, July 15: 10-minute oral arguments on the prosecution's request for a subpoena on the tax documents of Duterte, her husband Manases Carpio, and 22 businesses. Both sides were ordered to submit memoranda.
Separately, the tax records of Duterte and Carpio that were in the impeachment court's custody were returned to the Bureau of Internal Revenue at 11:07 a.m. The BIR received them through Atty. Anne Loraine Garcia-Marquez of the Office of the Commissioner.
BOTH SIDES SAID THEY WON.
Defense spokesperson Atty. Michael Poa gave the defense team a 10 out of 10 for the day. He said the targets were to establish the extent of the NBI investigation, expose the nature of the affidavits, and give context to portions of the November 2024 video. He said Narvasa executed the cross "to the T."
Prosecution adviser Rep. Robert Ace Barbers said the testimony was "neither shaken nor punctured." Legal spokesperson Benjamin Tolosa Jr. said the prosecution did not need to redirect because the defense had not undermined the principal testimony authenticating the November 23 video.
Both statements can be true at the same time. The prosecution kept its authentication on the record. The defense put daylight between "the video is real" and "the video proves she contracted an assassin." Neither side moved the ball to the finish line.
WHAT DAY 3 DID.
Day 3 was not spectacle. It was housekeeping done in public.
The defense moved the ground under the case from what Duterte said to how the state pursued it. The prosecution kept its witness intact but did not add new material to the record. Escudero told both sides to stop arguing the case before all the evidence is in. And the trial calendar reset with Lotoc, Lopez, and Bello lined up for next week.
Week 1 ends here. Article IV still has eight more days of hearings allotted to it. Whether the prosecution needs all of them is the question the next witness will start to answer.