The Wire

The presiding officer of the impeachment court put the matter formally on the record: no subpoena was issued to NBI Director Matibag before today's appearance.

"The presiding officer confirms that no subpoena was issued to Director Matibag," the officer stated from the bench, adding that when asked whether one was needed, "the response I got was that it was not necessary."

The clarification came after defense counsel pressed Matibag on exactly what authority he was appearing under — an exchange that exposed a gap between the witness's claim of a "verbal announcement" from the court and the court's own records.

Under cross-examination, NBI Director Matibag clarified that the impeachment court did not issue a subpoena compelling him to appear — he came voluntarily, at the invitation of the prosecution.

He added that, per the pre-trial order, he was also listed as a potential witness by the defense — and said he would be willing to testify for the defense as well if called.

The exchange underscored the unusual position of the NBI chief: appearing in a proceeding where his wife endorsed the charges, at the request of the prosecution, while remaining open to the other side.

A striking disclosure mid-cross-examination: NBI Director Matibag acknowledged on the stand that his wife is one of the signatories on the House articles of impeachment against VP Sara Duterte — the very case he is testifying in.

"My wife is one of the endorsers of the impeachment," he said, after defense counsel confronted him with a document bearing what appeared to be his wife's signature. The screen showed House Resolution No. 989, with the name Ma. Rene Lourdes G. Matibag listed among the introducing representatives.

The presiding officer noted the admission and told counsel to move on. Matibag maintained that his wife's role as a legislator is "totally detached" from his duties as NBI director.

Defense counsel asked NBI Director Matibag whether the bureau also intends to investigate alleged corruption involving a former speaker of the House — described in the question as "going around the country" — based on statements VP Sara made in the press conference video.

The lead prosecutor immediately objected, calling the question "misleading." The presiding officer had not yet ruled on the objection when the exchange moved on.

Matibag had earlier told the court that the NBI is "driven by evidence and the process and the law" in determining which investigations to pursue.

A sharp exchange erupted in the impeachment court as NBI Director Matibag was confronted with a document — appearing to be the impeachment resolution transmitted by the Committee on Justice — bearing multiple signatures, including one attributed to a person identified as his wife.

When defense counsel pressed him on whether he could authenticate the signature, Matibag drew a distinction: "I think I have no authority to confirm the signature even if she is my wife," he said, adding that he had not been previously confronted with the document for comparison purposes.

The document displayed on screen lists several signatories including Ma. Rene Lourdes G. Matibag, Terry L. Ridon, Chel Diokno, and Sarah Jane Elago, among others. The court directed that the witness be properly confronted with the document before answering further, with sub-marking of the relevant pages — including a signature page described as around page 16B — to be completed at a later time.

A sharp procedural clash erupted in the impeachment court after the defense raised questions about a sitting House of Representatives member — whose name appeared garbled in the live feed — in the context of Matibag's testimony.

The prosecution objected that the line of questioning was "totally irrelevant," but the presiding officer sided with the defense: "These are credibility testing questions which is always relevant. The objection is overruled."

The ruling gives the defense wider latitude to probe the NBI chief on the congressional dimension of the corruption allegations named in VP Sara's November 23 press conference video.

Under cross-examination, NBI Director Matibag admitted the agency has no personal knowledge of the individual VP Sara Duterte claims told her she was being targeted for assassination.

When pressed on whether the NBI could verify who Sara spoke to regarding President Marcos, the First Lady, and the former speaker, Matibag answered: "Wala po dahil siya na kipagusap" ["We have none, because she was the one who spoke to them"].

The concession is significant: it means the NBI's ongoing investigation into the alleged kill plot rests, at this stage, entirely on VP Sara's own account — with no corroborating witness independently known to the agency.

Defense counsel established two further points from Director Matibag during cross-examination: that the NBI is already investigating alleged corruption in the 2019 SEA Games — a probe that predates VP Sara's November 2024 press conference — and that the bureau would not hesitate to investigate the Office of the President's unaudited confidential funds, which VP Sara also raised in the video.

"Hindi po magdadalawang isip ang NBI," Matibag said, citing the bureau's mandate. ["The NBI will not think twice."] The prosecution objected to a subsequent question about the former speaker as "misleading," but the presiding officer allowed defense counsel to finish the question before ruling.

Under cross-examination, NBI Director Matibag made a significant concession when pressed on whether the bureau had launched a separate investigation into the corruption allegations VP Sara Duterte raised in her November 23 press conference — allegations naming President Marcos, the First Lady and the former House Speaker.

Matibag said the NBI's ongoing investigation "maaring tumutukoy na po sa mga taong binabanggiit" ["may already be pointing to the people being mentioned"] in the video played earlier in court.

The admission came as defense counsel walked him through a line of questions establishing that the NBI has both the authority and the active mandate to investigate the officials VP Sara named.

With the video segment concluded, the defense resumed direct questioning of Director Matibag, turning to the substance of what VP Sara said during the press conference.

Matibag was asked about his personal knowledge of specific statements — including references to a House of Representatives matter — signalling the defense will now probe whether the witness can independently verify any of the Vice President's claims, or whether his testimony rests solely on the video itself.

As soon as the defense finished screening the November 23, 2024 VP Sara press conference clip, the lead prosecutor rose to formally object — saying for the record that the video played in court was "unmarked and spliced."

The objection is procedurally significant: it challenges the evidentiary integrity of the clip the defense used to question witness Director Matibag, suggesting it may not be a complete or properly authenticated copy of the original recording.

The presiding officer acknowledged the objection and the defense's note of the timestamp and markings before allowing proceedings to continue.

The presiding officer stepped in as the prosecution raised a running objection to the defense's line of questioning on personal knowledge and hearsay.

The lead prosecutor argued that all of Matibag's testimony on the first investigation is grounded in official records — which, under the rules of evidence, constitute prima facie evidence of their contents and are a recognised exception to the hearsay rule.

The presiding officer ultimately sided with giving the defense room to establish its point, but made clear the indulgence has limits: "Go to your next topic as soon as you're done with this," the officer said from the bench.

More now on the Rule 130 exchange. After confirming for the second time that a witness can only testify from personal knowledge — "Tama po" ["That is correct"] — Director Matibag immediately added: "pero may run po ang mga exceptions sa Rode" ["but there are exceptions to the rule"].

The witness, a 29-year lawyer, was pushing back against the defense's implication that his entire testimony is inadmissible hearsay — echoing the prosecution's earlier argument that entries in official records are prima facie evidence and a recognised exception to the hearsay rule.

The presiding officer told defense counsel the court could see what point he was trying to establish, and granted leeway to continue — but directed him to move on to the next topic as soon as he was done.

Before the defense began playing the footage in court, Director Matibag confirmed under cross-examination that he had personally watched the November 23, 2024 VP Sara press conference video in its entirety.

Asked whether he watched the whole video, Matibag replied: *"Napanood ko po"* ["I watched it"] — adding that he focused on the parts he considered most important, but that he had seen the full video.

The defense had earlier established Matibag's knowledge of the underlying investigation was drawn entirely from records and news reports, not personal participation. The admission that he personally viewed this specific video now sets up a line of questioning on the press con's contents.

In a striking courtroom moment, NBI Director Matibag — himself a lawyer of 29 years — agreed with the defense that the personal-knowledge rule applies to witnesses, before adding a caveat.

"Based on this rule, a witness can only testify based on his personal knowledge, correct?" the defense asked. Matibag replied: "Tama po" ["That is correct"] — then immediately noted: "pero may run po ang mga exceptions sa Rode" ["but there are exceptions to the rule"].

The exchange is significant because it is the witness himself — not just the defense — validating the legal framework the defense has built its entire cross-examination around. The presiding officer gave the defense leeway to continue on this line, while signalling it should wrap up the topic.

In a moment aimed squarely at "the Filipino people watching," defense counsel asked Matibag to agree that — stripped of legal jargon — his knowledge of the investigation amounts to hearsay.

To drive the point home, counsel suggested the Tagalog equivalent: *"chismis"* (gossip). Matibag declined to accept the framing: *"Hindi ko po naririnig na hearsay ginabit ang salitang chismis,"* he said ["I have never heard the word 'chismis' used in place of hearsay"].

The exchange drew a visible reaction in the hearing room. Whatever the legal outcome, the defense has now planted a colloquial shorthand — *chismis* — for the witness's pre-appointment knowledge in the public record.

The lead prosecutor intervened after the defense pressed Matibag on Rule 130, Section 22 — the personal-knowledge requirement — to argue the witness is not in breach of the rules at all.

Official records, the prosecutor contended, are treated under Philippine rules of evidence as *prima facie* evidence of their contents, meaning a witness who came to his position after the fact may still testify on the basis of those records.

The presiding officer acknowledged the point but told defense counsel to move on: "I'll give you some leeway, counsel, but go to your next topic as soon as you're done with this." The exchange signals the prosecution's strategy for rehabilitating Matibag's evidence after a cross-examination that exposed the limits of his first-hand knowledge.

Defense counsel placed a copy of Rule 130, Section 22 of the Rules of Evidence before Matibag and had him read it aloud: *"Testimony confined to personal knowledge. 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."*

Counsel then asked the director — who confirmed he has been a lawyer for 29 years — whether he agreed the rule bound him. The prosecution intervened, arguing that Matibag's testimony about the earlier investigation was grounded in official records, which constitute prima facie evidence under the rules and are a recognised exception.

The court is now on screen displaying the hearsay rule slide, with the exchange framing a direct legal question: whether the director's record-based testimony is admissible as evidence of what actually happened during an investigation he never personally witnessed.

In a pointed Tagalog exchange, defense counsel asked the NBI Director to confirm on the record that he had no personal knowledge of the investigation that began on November 23, 2024 — a year before his appointment.

Matibag answered: "Nag-abas ako lang sa balita ang upagnayari. Well, yun lang po yung nag-abas ko" ["I only learned what happened from the news. Well, that is all I had access to"].

The admission goes a step further than his earlier concession that his knowledge was based on 'reading the investigation report' — he now says his source was news coverage.

The defense walked Matibag through every procedural stage of the NBI fact-finding investigation — and on screen, four signed minutes of meetings dated November 2024 appeared with red-X marks flagging each one he could not account for.

Mattibag confirmed he did not oversee interviews of journalists including a reporter from Reuters, a reporter from Rappler, and others named in the proceedings. He did not meet any of the interviewees before or after. He did not meet any of their lawyers. He was not present when NBI agents subscribed and sworn to their affidavits. "I was not there," he said repeatedly.

On whether he oversaw the drafting of the affidavits by NBI agents, Matibag said: "Again, very unlikely. I was not present." The defense concluded the sequence by securing his admission that he had no personal knowledge of any of those stages of the investigation.

In a striking courtroom exchange, the defense pressed Director Matibag to summarise his limitations for "the honorable court and the Filipino people watching" — and he did, in plain terms.

When asked whether he admits having no personal knowledge of the investigation that began on 23 November 2024, Matibag replied: "Or di po, I can take judicial notice of the fact bahin di pa po ko NBA director ng panahon na yun" ["Yes, I can take judicial notice of the fact that I was not yet NBI director at that time."] Pressed further, he confirmed: "Tamap po" ["That is correct."].

When defense counsel asked directly whether his knowledge of the investigation was based only on his reading of the investigation report, Matibag replied: "That is absolutely correct" — adding that he also relied on discussions with investigating officers. He was not present for any stage of the original inquiry.

Lead prosecutors have entered a continuing objection to the defense's entire line of questioning about pre-appointment conduct, arguing formally for the record that Matibag has no personal knowledge of the investigation conducted before he took office in February 2026.

The Senate court noted the objection but allowed the defense to proceed. The prosecution had earlier offered to stipulate — to speed up proceedings — that all remaining subpoenas were issued before Matibag's appointment, but the defense declined, insisting on putting each item to the witness individually.

Cross-examination of NBI Director Matibag has moved beyond subpoenas to the NBI's actual conduct of journalist interviews — and the answers are consistent: he was not there for any of it.

Asked whether he oversaw interviews of named journalists conducted as part of the fact-finding investigation, Matibag said he was appointed only on February 20, 2026 and described his involvement as "very unlikely." When asked specifically whether he was ever physically present at the NBI Cybercrime Division office during those interviews, he replied: "That is impossible."

He also confirmed he never met any of the interviewees or their lawyers, never oversaw the drafting of affidavits following the interviews, and never saw any of the interviewees sign minutes of the meeting. On screen, four sets of signed interview minutes from November 2024 are displayed — each marked with a red X.

Cross-examination pivoted to a new line of questioning: whether Director Matibag oversaw any of the interviews conducted during the fact-finding investigation. His answer turned on timing.

"I was appointed only on February 20, 2026," he said, adding that it was "very unlikely" he was part of any investigation conducted before that date. Asked specifically about interviews of journalists named in the investigation report — including one from Rappler and another involving Jason Rubrico — Matibag said he was not aware of them and did not oversee them, though he acknowledged the interviews were "reflected in the investigation report."

He also told the court he did not see anyone sign any minutes of the meetings in question. Four signed minutes documents dated November 2024 — several bearing red X marks indicating missing or unsigned attendees — were displayed on screen as questioning continued.

With VP Duterte's lawyers appearing set to run through all remaining subpoenas one by one, the lead prosecutor intervened and offered to stipulate — formally agreeing on the record — that none of the subpoenas were issued while Matibag was NBI Director, in order to "abbreviate the proceedings."

Counsel for the respondent declined. "We are not willing to stipulate, your honor," the defence lawyer said. "We'll just ask for a ruling from the court."

The presiding officer allowed the questioning to continue, and Matibag proceeded to give the same answer — effectively "same, sir" — to each remaining subpoena put to him.

In a methodical cross-examination, lawyers for VP Sara Duterte walked witness Director Matibag through a series of NBI subpoenas issued during the investigation — and he confirmed he did not sign a single one.

The subpoenas named in court included those issued to journalists from Manila Times, Reuters (correspondent Mikhail Flores), and SMNI (correspondent Jason Rubrico), as well as to a reporter identified as Trixi Cruz Angelis and to two OVP personnel. In each case, Matibag's answer was the same: he did not sign it.

Matibag had already established earlier in testimony that he was not yet NBI Director when the subpoenas were issued. One subpoena, he said, appeared to have been signed by an official he identified as Glenn Ricarte. On screen, the grid of case documents now shows six pages marked with red X's — up from two at the start of cross-examination.

The impeachment court declined to remove the red-X markings on documents displayed during cross-examination, but formally noted the prosecution's objection.

Lead prosecutor had argued the redactions — shown as large X marks on a grid of 10 documents visible to the public broadcast — risked creating a misleading impression about the witness's credibility or discipline record. "May we just remove those XX? We don't mind if they flash the documents but it should be an exact reflection of what the document is," she said.

The court acknowledged the "observation, manifestation, and objection" but allowed proceedings to continue with the documents as displayed. The on-screen grid, visible throughout the session, shows at least two pages prominently marked with red Xs.

A significant admission emerged early in cross-examination: Director Matibag confirmed he did not sign the subpoenas at the centre of the inquiry — including those reportedly issued to individuals connected to SMNI and Manila Times — because he had not yet been appointed NBI Director at the time the documents were issued.

"I am not yet the NBI Director," Matibag said when pressed. "So in short, you did not sign it?" defence counsel asked. "I did not sign it," he replied, adding that the subpoenas were signed by another official — referred to in the transcript as Glenn Ricarte or a similar name (the audio was not fully clear).

The prosecution moved to abbreviate proceedings by offering to stipulate that the subpoenas were issued before Matibag's appointment — an offer defence counsel declined, pressing on with individual questions for each document.

As cross-examination of Director Matibag resumed, a dispute over documentary evidence broke out on screen at the Philippine Senate impeachment trial.

A grid of 10 documents was displayed — two of them marked with prominent red X's. A prosecutor immediately raised an objection: "I'm afraid it will give a wrong impression to the viewing public that those XX has something to do with the inability perhaps — or whatever impression it may give," she said, asking why the panel could not simply present the exact originals rather than the marked versions.

The exchange signals an early skirmish in cross-examination over which version of documents the VP's defence counsel will be permitted to use.

The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has resumed after a 15-minute recess, with the Senate court now moving to the cross-examination phase.

The presiding chair confirmed the witness — identified on-screen as Director Matibag — remains under the same oath as his direct testimony. "Do you confirm, Director Matibag, sir?" the chair asked. "Yes, your honor," the witness replied.

Counsel for the respondent (VP Duterte's defence team) has been recognised to begin cross-examination. A brief procedural matter — approval of the session journal — was flagged by the chair before questioning gets underway.